WIP

And your link didn't provide any numbers to back up that claim! Great! So who makes the laws and enforces them in Egypt, the parliament or the Shoura Council? I think most of us looking in from the outside can be excused for assuming that the Parliament's decision to rescind the ban means that it can be practised legally. Let's see some numbers for how many are actually prosecuted for conducting these operations before we start jumping for joy! Did you read that commentary I posted from Sheik Qaradawi taken straight from his IslamOnline website? He did not call for a ban! He's supposed to be the most listened to expert in the Sunni Muslim World on these matters, and he stated that he personally considered it a beneficial, though not mandatory practise! That sounds to me like he wants it kept legal for those who choose this option. When did he change his mind? Or did the Egyptian newspaper just make it up that he's on their side? Christian religious leaders only dream of having the clout that their corresponding Muslim clerics enjoy! They persist in keeping this practise alive because they live in societies where women are the property of men throughout their lives, and they fear that if their daughters aren't circumcised they won't be able to marry them off. The way you put it, you act like this is all the fault of the mothers and other older women of the community. As long as the only opportunity for social advancement is to get their daughters married into the right families, they will do whatever is demanded of them to make the next generation of females acceptable. And how do you propose "educating these cultures" when they live in societies where the clerics tell everyone how to dress and how to conduct their daily lives?

Okay! Sounds a little muddled and convoluted, but I get the point that you are an adamant foe of abortion. Problem #1 is that you cannot oppose abortion without stepping in and telling a woman that she has no right to make the decision of whether or not to have the baby, even though she is the one who goes through nine months of pregnancy and the ordeal of childbirth. The absolute prolife groups who say life begins at the imaginary point of conception also don't feel any reluctance to take control of the breeding process. But the churches who run the prolife advocacy groups are led by men -- whether they intend it or not, they add fuel to the feminist's argument that prolife is patriarchal authorities trying to take control of the procreation process. The other problem I have with the all human life is sacred claptrap is that women have had abortions for centuries and many will continue to have abortions even if they are illegal and dangerous! When I was very young, an 18 year old girl in our neighbourhood died from complications of a botched abortion. I actually wasn't aware of the reason why she died at the time, my older brothers told me the gory details a few years later when I was old enough to understand. If the prolife cause could actually get their wish, like has happened in El Salvador, I wonder if they'll extend the same concern for the unfortunate girls dying from abortion that they feel for newly forming embryos that can't be seen without a microscope!

I'd like to see his storytelling and religious mystical mumbo jumbo stand up to peer review! It seems like the natives here have been reading Idealism and Post-modern Relativist philosophy, where everyone can run around with their own personal truth and science is just another belief system. I'd like to know if they have the guts to fly on an airplane built by someone who considers mystical wisdom equal to scientific evidence! The problem is that proving a point with scientific evidence like mitochondrial DNA depends on whether the other person has taken even a little time to learn the basics about genetics and genomics. I heard Susan Jacobi in an interview recently state that 60% of Americans don't know what the letters D.N.A. stand for! I hope a polling result in Canada is at least a little better than the U.S. results. Honestly, besides problems dealing with teaching evolution, how is the public going to make informed choices regarding issues like stem cell research with these kind of numbers?

Even if MEMRI isn't 100% honest, I'll still cut them some slack for the invaluable job they do of providing English translations of programs on Arab T.V. Don't forget, the most inflamatory clips like the female moderator of a Palestinian TV show coaching a 4 year old girl to say that she hates Jews because they are descendents of apes and pigs, made their impact because they were shown on all of the anti-Muslim or anti-Arab websites. Regardless, the Palestinian and other Arab networks should be on notice that they are not just venting and spewing bile for their audience now that we're in the internet age!

Okay! You gals are just making up your own make-believe world where no religion condones clitorectomies, and it's just those backward tribal people that are keeping an ancient practise going! It doesn't matter how or when it got started, the fact is that a large number of Muslim authorities are advocates for this practise. Otherwise Egypt woudn't have reversed its ban on female circumcision -- the story that started this thread in the first place! IslamOnline is the busiest Islamic website on the internet. According to Alexa, it receives more hits than any other website in the Arab World, so what advice does Sheik Al-Qaradawi have to solve this issue: However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands". The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris. Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars. http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satelli...d=1119503543886 Not exactly an unqualified rejection from the go-to-guy for advice! My original challenge still stands if you don't recognize a religious dimension to this problem: find me the corresponding Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or any other religious authorities who speak favourably of continuing female genital mutilation!

The article you linked points out that just like most late-term abortions performed in Canada and the U.S., they are a very small percentage of the number of abortions in total. Many campaigns to ban third trimester abortion allow for exceptions such as: danger to the mother's life or health or dangerous birth defects that couldn't be detected earlier in the pregnancy. But improved technology can reveal greater detail about the new life that's forming. Should an abortion be allowed if the child is likely to be diabetic or have some other, less than life-threatening ailment? Or should abortion be allowed if the child is not going to be the desired sex? Societies like India and China, are experiencing a shortage of girl babies, that is going to lead to some sort of social upheaval down the road if the balance can't be restored. And there is the matter of competing rights! The prolife/ prochoice dispute centers around the question of whether a developing fetus has a right to life and is there any stage where it will supercede the rights of the mother, who has to go through the trouble and possible health risk of bringing the child into this world. The problem is that "human life" gradually developes and there is no magic line to determine when it should be regarded as a person. The zygote that forms after the fertilization stage is complete, has no meaningful human attributes other than a brand new DNA blueprint. It slowly developes human features, a nervous system, brainstem and finally a cerebral cortex that will provide a unique consciousness. One of the prolife supporters in the article, mentions the issue of fetal pain - which has to be taken seriously though medical researchers still aren't sure if a late term fetus has enough conscious awareness to experience pain in any manner that we can understand, even after the physical system has been established - - the nerve fibers of the developing central nervous system have to connect with the thalamus at the base of the brain, and those thalamacortical fibers then begin to penetrate the cortical plate of the cerebral cortex, which enables the information from the nervous system to be received and properly interpreted for the developing cerebral cortex. It's a process that slowly developes, and their is wide disagreement whether the fetus is consciously aware of pain signals even after the hardware is in place. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7060/795/a http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29652.php Some researchers who testify on behalf of prolife groups, believe that some sort of discomfort is being experienced by the fetus as early as 18 weeks, since the thalamus is receiving information from the nervous system. They believe that discomforting signals being received in early brain development are being unconsciously processed and may be later internalized as feelings of anxiety later on in life. Who knows! But certainly if fetal pain is a serious issue, it's going to factor in to the debate, at least regarding third trimester abortion! That article mentions that many women ask for some assurance from their doctors that the fetus will not feel pain if they have to abort it at that late stage. Even after birth, the baby is still not developed enough to be consciously aware in the sense that we are. We just have an understanding in the modern age that once the baby is born, it has a right to life that must be provided by the parents or other caregivers if they are not competent to do so. This wasn't always the case! And even today, infanticide is still common in some backward, marginal areas of the world.

Re: all of the crazy religious wackos who started the concept of snipping off body parts to be presentable before the eyes of God, has anyone ever asked: if you have a perfect god, how did he make the mistake of adding a foreskin or the female genitalia that has to be mutilated, in the first place?

You're all wrong! It's going to be Senator Jim Webb of Virginia. He's the best choice to balance the ticket, since he's a military man who served in Defense Dept. under the Reagan Administration, has strong support among those so called "Reagan Democrats" that are needed by John McCain, if he actually has a hope in hades of winning the election. And even better, the Senate Bill to improve veterans benefits that he's sponsored and has just passed in the Senate, shines a little light on how the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, care nothing for the military other than how to use them for political advantage! Here's John McCain, following Bush's example of posing in front of tanks and soldiers every chance he gets AND HE REJECTS A BILL TO ALLOW VETERANS THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT WWII VETERANS HAD WITH THE G.I. BILL! McCain says he's afraid that they won't re-enlist and go off and die in Iraq, if they have the opportunity to go to college! McCain is no different than Bush and most of the other Republicans who see soldiers as pawns to play in the global chess game and nothing more. If Webb is on the ticket, John McCain's bogus concern for the troops is exposed for all to see!

In your interpretation, salvation is available to all simply by believing in the ransom sacrifice offered to all of those who believe that Jesus is the only path to salvation; or as the often quoted John 3:16 says: Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life The problem is that there are other New Testament verses that offer different requirements for salvation. One big one is baptism. Is baptism just a symbol of spiritual rebirth? Or is it a mandatory ritual required for salvation? Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And if water baptism is a mandatory requirement for salvation, then the would-be Christian has to make sure that he or she is going to receive a real Christian baptism! For example, the infant baptism rites of the Catholic and mainstream Protestant churches, are not recognized as valid baptism ceremonies by the various Baptist churches that teach that baptism is supposed to be just the way John the Baptist did it: full immersion under water and after the prospective Christian has made a profession of faith and public declaration as a Christian - so that rules out the validity of infant baptism on two fronts! Even among Baptists, there is still another matter to deal with: there are many fringe and heretical sects that practise the full immersion baptism, do they count? For example, I was baptised into the Jehovah's Witness sect many years ago, but since the Witnesses are a unitarian religion that denies the divinity of Jesus, the J.W. baptism wouldn't be valid for theological reasons. Some of the other common requirements are continued receiving of the sacraments. Catholics don't have a "born again" belief, but instead believe in conditional salvation that must be maintained on a continual basis throughout one's life. The biggie is attending Mass for this reason: John 6:53-54: Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. Some small Christian sects like Seventh Day Adventists and these new Messianic Jewish sects believe that a Christian also has to keep the Law, or at least some part of the Mosaic Law like the moral laws expressed in the Commandments, and do good works to guarantee salvation: Matthew 19:17-19: If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life. James 2:17: Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Matthew 16.27: For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 2 Corinthians 5:10: For we must all appear before the jugment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 1 Peter 1:17: The Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work. These are the main divisions of salvation doctrines, but there are scores of nuanced variations that combine some of these requirements together. And before I forget, there is still the matter of dealing with the theology that started with John Calvin, that the elect are predestined for salvation, and there's nothing the vast majority of unbelievers can do to share in the kingdom! I didn't get this years ago, but the five point Calvinists have their own Bible verses to quote from for the purpose of proving that God chooses who will be saved, not the sinner. These are a few of the verses in the Wikipedia entry on Five Point Calvinism, in the English Standard Version: # John 15:16: "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." # Acts 13:48: "And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed." # Romans 9:15-16: "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." # Romans 9:22-24: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessles of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make the riches of his glory for vessles of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory - even us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?" # Ephesians 1:4-5: "even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will," # Ephesians 1:11: "In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#General_description And with predestination comes "limited atonement." Only a few are chosen from the vast multitude of humanity! The Wiki article on limited atonement cites their supporting verses to support a belief that only a few are "chosen." What I always find fascinating about Calvinist theology, is that they feel no discomfort with a belief that most of humanity ends up roasting in hell's flames forever, and they make no bones about it! Most other Christians simply avoid looking directly at the discomforting thought of how many are cast into the fiery pit, and I think the Calvinists get around any cognitive dissonance of holding a belief that the omnibenevalent God tortures people forever by their extreme emphasis on the depravity and worthlessness of the sinner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement But unless a Christian is a believer in some form of universal salvation they still have a huge ethical dilemma of trying to square this circle! How does the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-merciful and all-loving creator of the universe allow sending his creations to everlasting torment? Some of the answers created through theodicy try to deal with damnation by placing it out of God's hands and out of his control entirely. I've heard many responses along the lines of "God doesn't send people to hell, Sin sends them to hell" since they've refused the lifeline to heaven or such! But this answer carries with it the implication that God cannot be "all-powerful" if he doesn't have a choice in the matter! Hell is just one segment of what's often referred to as "The Problem of Evil" and it is one of the major stumbling blocks to a belief in what some theologians refer to as the "Omnimax" Deity. Some theodicies have turned Christianity into a dualistic religion something like Zoroastrianism, where there is a constant spiritual warfare between the good god and the evil god. Even if they believe it is only a temporary condition until the Rapture and Second Coming, there's no getting around the fact that some fundamentalist preachers are teaching that Satan is an almost as powerful as God, since he is omnipresent in this world - constantly eavesdropping on the saved Christians and trying to lead them back into sin, and since he is given credit for almost all of the evil in the world and the Fall of Man, he is also an omnipotent deity here on Earth! So, with all this said, my viewpoint is still that a Christian has a multitude of choices to form their beliefs, and each side has a treasure-trove of bible verses to quote from as supporting authority! To me, that pretty much rules out any validity in a supreme Christian doctrine. Odds are that whichever one you choose, the narrow path to salvation will be the wrong one! I went through a whole laundry list of examples of contradictory paths to salvation above that call into question any belief that God left a written text as his "tangible proof" for us. Considering that this is the creator of the Universe we're talking about, why would he have to settle for a confusing, convoluted book that can be interpreted in many ways? IF it is a matter of leaving evidence, an all-powerful creator could write his message in the sky or align the stars to give us the commandments, for example! I'm sure an all-knowing deity could come up with more creative communication methods than I can! And if you add the problem that trusting your "heart" and looking for the "Holy Spirit" to guide you would only be valid as objective evidences for the true religion if everyone heard the same message from the Holy Spirit! But they don't! The fact that so many have claimed a "calling" or heard the Holy Spirit through the "voice of faith" in some way, demonstrates that this a personal subjective interpretation and not from an external source of any kind. Is this honeymoon period you describe part of God's plan, or is it just a conversion tactic used by his earthly emmisarys? After some of the proselytizing sects I became involved with, I noticed how wonderful they were when you first walked through the door - it is a tactic that is no different than what cult-analysts describe as "love-bombing" , and it is used to motivate the new prospect to abandon all doubts through an emotional appeal to accept their religion. After your in the door, then you start finding out the rules after they feel they have you securely in their grasp!

Fine with me, but an honest discussion of female genital mutilation should include a willingness to evaluate all of the factors that contribute to this problem, and not to deliberately ignore the elephant in the room, like so many politically correct organizations such as these U.N. commissions do! How reliable is the word of any U.N. body as a defender of human rights when their human rights commission has bowed to demands by the Organization of Islamic Countries to include a provision that does not protect free speech criticising religion, under the guise of a "protection of religion against blasphemy?" http://www.assistnews.net/Stories/2007/s07040052.htm And doesn't the fact that it is a "controversial practise" in the Muslim World tell you something? I spent about 15 minutes searching the web for Christian leaders or churches who advocate the FGM practise and came up with nothing. YOu tell me if you can find any Christian organization advocating FGM, because I got nothing! If you've read many of my previous posts, you'll realize that I don't play favourites when it comes to religion! It's all superstition that will have to fall before humanity can advance to the next level. But, I'm not going to pretend there's a story here that doesn't exist! The fact is FGM is widely criticized by Christian leaders and would disappear if Islamic authorities - or at least SOME Islamic authorities to be technically correct - are insisting that their people keep it alive. On the other hand, a googel search of Islamic advocates comes up with hundreds of links! Most of them are duplicates, but there are dozens of links to Islamic advocates and groups condemning them for giving clerical authority to this practise! According to Mariam Qawane, campaign coordinator, Novib Somalia, while FGM is not practised by majority of Muslims, it has however of recent taken a religious dimension. Where Muslims practice it, religion is frequently cited as a reason, but those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practice and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject . The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. Adan Ahmed, an opponent of FGM cites a case faced by the Prophet. In answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying "reduce but do not destroy". Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity. Christian missionaries among the Somali populace have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep-rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice. http://www.newsfromafrica.org/newsfromafri...s/art_3744.html Religious figures disagree over whether or not the practice is condoned by Islam. This issue “is still being debated,” said Al-Murisi. http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=25685 But also, somehow, the BBC have found house room for Dr Munir Fawzi. Dr Fawzi claims, contrary to the findings of every UN or otherwise humane investigation or report, that FGM is sometimes beneficial for the woman, to the point of being “necessary” in preventing dangerous infections. In the full report, Dr Fawzi also claimed that FGM was required on religious grounds, at least to a limited extent - which is totally false. Dr Fawzi is on the record as saying: “Female circumcision is entrenched in Islamic life and teaching.” “Our mothers, aunts and sisters have been doing this for years and no one was complaining.” “I’m a university professor and I can decide whether a patient needs to be reduced* or not. I will do it for medical reasons,” [said with a smile, apparently] [* "reduced"??!! pokes eyes out with stick] Fawzi is also responsible in part for the 1996 Egyptian ban on FGM being overturned by Egypt’s administrative courts, on the basis that it inappropriately restricted his practice. This is from PubMed: “According to news reports, the court cited research purporting to show that failure to perform FGM harmed children, as well as quotes from Mohammed, which FGM advocates said endorsed the procedure under Islamic law… The suit against the ban had been filed by Sheik Youssef al-Badry, a conservative Islamic cleric, and Munir Fawzi, a Cairo gynecologist… Egypt’s highest Sunni Moslem authority contests the endorsement of FGM under Islamic law.” http://touchinglynaive.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/amarezza/ THIS ARTICLE IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD, SINCE NONE OF THE NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT THE REPEAL OF THE FGM BAN IN EGYPT DARE TO MENTION WHY! The Supreme Islamic Council, which is the government advisory body on religious matters affecting Islam has never taken a clear stand about FGM and the Islamic position. This indecisive position has created a situation where some women have doubt on the issues raised by activists and they engage in the practice. The reason for this is, men are associated with the knowledge of Islam and there voices carry more weight even if they are wrong or ignorant of the issues at stake. http://www.gamcotrap.gm/documents/Press_releases_2007/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20THE%20DABATE%20ON%20FEMALE%20GENITAL%20MUTILATION-%20FINAL.pdf Once you wade through all of the online reports about the clerics giving their sanction to genital mutilation, the argument that this is more of a cultural custom than a religious issue, is revealed as an attempt to mask the real sources that propagate this practise and keep it alive. I looked for some numbers to back up the claim in this last U.N. article that Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger and the United Republic of Tanzania, prevalence of FGM/C is higher among daughters of Christian women than among daughters of Muslim women, and could find nothing! It's even debatable how reliable the stats are from African nations. Are there any polling firms going around from village to village to find out the cultural breakdown of who does and who does not practise FGM? I doubt it. Even the numbers listed in reports like this one from Amnesty International are likely very rough estimates, and they only give numbers on a national basis. FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IN AFRICA: Information

The one key to making Islam a compatible religion with the Western World is for them to declare a moratorium on the crime of apostasy. In Muslim countries, anyone who is a critic is in danger of being charged, tried and executed as an apostate. This practise inevitably leads to totalitarianism. The idiot Neocons should have understood how unlikely it would be to establish "western democracy" in Iraq or Afghanistan as long as challenging religious authorities is a capital crime. Many educated Western Muslims secretly become apostate, but do not dare express their lack of faith openly because their fellow Muslims are taught in Western Mosques that any Muslim who denies his religion deserves death! As long as freedom of religion in the West allows the free and open practise of Islam, the Muslim religious and political leaders should be leaned on forcefully to stop trying to use threats and intimidation to keep the apostates from speaking out! And before I forget, Mark Steyn is one of those idiot Neocons who expresses the opinions shared by Robert Spencer, Bat Ye-or, Oriana Fallaci, and others, that Islam is a religion that cannot be made compatible with our values, so what the hell was he doing cheerleading the Bush Administration's foreign wars in the first place? Now that Iraq, and soon - Afghanistan will be revealed as unqualified disasters, Steyn, David Frum and a whole host of Neocon propagandists are trying to flee the ship now that the Bush Administration is under water! They can twist and squirm and make all kinds of excuses for failure now, but this wasn't a tactical blunder, or even a mistake of military planning - it was a based on an impossible theory to begin with!

Oleg didn't explain which direction he is coming from with that statement, so it's anyone's guess which New Testament theory is referring to! Many liberal theologians and biblical textual scholars have offered the possibility that Jesus of Nazareth was not the Jesus that the Apostle Paul was referring to, since he doesn't mention important aspects of the life of Jesus, such as the miracles, healing the sick, and parables etc., some have wondered if Paul was a Gnostic, who didn't believe that Jesus Christ lived on Earth as a man. Also, Paul wanted Christianity to be a new religion which did not require any Judaic teaching or upholding of Mosaic Law, this confrontation between Jewish Christians and the growing body of gentiles who were outside of Judaism is touched on in the Book of Acts, in the confrontation between Paul and Peter. The Acts account has them resolve their differences quickly with no acrimony, which seems unlikely considering the fight that went on between keepers of the Law, like the Ebionites, and the Gnostic Christians who wanted nothing of Judaism. As the Church of Rome was able to establish an orthodoxy in the 3rd and 4th centuries, it appears that they settled on a compromise solution, and rejected the two hardline factions as heresies. The great shame is that the Catholic Church was so successful in burning books and killing heretics, that we only have bits and pieces left to study what was happening in Christianity during the early years.

Thankyou Michele, I didn't think you were deliberately being offensive, it's just that I don't think that most Christians realize how arrogant it sounds to others that their beliefs are meaningless and without value because they have a different interpretation. It's also comes across as sort of "divine blackmail" to be subjected to a fear-based argument with a threat of hellfire, for not being convinced by logic and reason alone. There are two approaches for an evangelical to take: one is to preach to all non-Christians(including wrong Christians) as tactfully as possible, or the other option is to say nothing - which I think is chosen by the majority of evangelicals, since I have discovered so many who through third parties that have never talked to me directly about their beliefs, and why I need them. Many people are offended by Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and the handful of evangelical churches that do street-preaching; but I figure, if someone really believes the first century Christian attitude that they are in a race against time to make converts before they are eternally damned, then they have no choice other than constant proselytizing. I think many in that second group fear social ostracism if they express their beliefs to others, and are in the uncomfortable position of worrying about whether their shyness is condemning unbelievers to hell. My problem is not with the believers, but with the manner that this belief system has been set up. Even when I was a Christian, I could never get it out of my mind that the majority of people are condemned to eternal damnation regardless of who has the true version of Christianity, unless the true Christian doctrine is the universal salvation where no one goes to hell, that is expressed by Unitarian/Universalists and possibly a few others. Come to think of it, Judaism and Sikhism come close to be universalist also, since everyone who's righteous is supposed to be favoured in the eyes of God. Some like Buddhism, Taoism and I believe Hinduism, have temporary hells where the unrighteous and wicked serve their term before they can restore their Karma.......but this is going totally off track, let's just say, not every religion uses eternal punishment to try to keep people in line! The nagging doubts about the ethics of the Christian reward/punishment system cause many to deny or ignore this teaching that doesn't mesh with doctrine of a loving creator. My wife likely fits that category, but we don't spend a great amount of time discussing religion. Belief is a subjective experience, so I can't say exactly what Catholicism means to her, except that it's something that she chooses to hold on to, whereas I was motivated at a young age to make a complete break from the J.W.'s, then from fundamentalist Christianity, then from Christianity completely, and finally from the religious experience as a way of finding meaning in life. The problem for people who reject the conventional approaches to dealing with life's big questions is that rejecting tradition means you have a lot of homework to do! That's why I don't see "atheist" as a very good descriptive tag to describe the unreligious; all it identifies is what you don't believe in - supernatural forces that exist and operate outside of nature - it doesn't identify what a person DOES believe in. An atheist has to decide on what sort of system of ethics to follow since there are no "thou shalt nots", and build an understanding of the natural world and human nature. Most people who go this route are already involved in philosophy or scientific fields of research, so it's a lot of work for the non-academic! I hear this point made many times that there are people who will be saved in the apostate churches (like the Catholic Church), but looking at the requirement for salvation, I have to ask how do the apostates get "saved" when they have a different salvation model that requires membership in the one church that claims apostolic succession - in other words, they claim to have the "true" church that was founded by St. Peter. Now, on the Catholic side, they use the same argument that: we have the true church, but some of the people outside God's Church can be saved. Before the Vatican II Council in the early 60's, they were preaching: no salvation outside the church, but moderated their drastic doctrine a little to make it less offensive to non-Catholics. But it still leaves that big, nebulous question that Christians who believe their are salvation requirements don't want to deal with directly: how many, if any who do not meet the doctrinal requirements for salvation, end up in the Christian Hell? Stating that it's all in God's hands, and he will make the best determination based on his omniscient knowledge of our lives and what's in our souls, is an evasion from having to deal directly with the problem of an all-merciful God sending the majority of his human creatures to dwell forever in unimaginable torment! My wife had the same experience growing up as you did: being dropped off at church for Sunday School, and her father never went to church except for special occasions, while her mother attended Mass occasionally, perhaps on a monthly basis. We live a block away from the local Catholic Church, and she goes often to get away from the daily routine and finds the church setting important for her to pray and meditate. For myself, there are a million other locations I would prefer to have some time to myself! That's about all for now. Take care, and thanks for your posted message!

I didn't say you were an apologist! But you are re-broadcasting the soft approach of "religion of peace" apologists, who refuse to connect the dots with terrorism, oppression of women and religious minorities, and this disgusting, barbaric practise, with the original source! Everything in life is too complicated to identify with single causes, but ignoring the Islamic authorities who demand that their people continue to mutilate their girls, is nothing more than pulling the wool over your eyes! And it would have remained an isolated practise in Egypt and the Nile River Valley if the practise wasn't adopted by Islam, along with male circumcision and spread throughout the Muslim World. I haven't found any historical records of it being practised in Arabia and the rest of Africa prior to the Islamic Era: Religion FGM predates Islam and is not practised by the majority of Muslims, but has acquired a religious dimension. Where it is practised by Muslims, religion is frequently cited as a reason. Many of those who oppose mutilation deny that there is any link between the practise and religion, but Islamic leaders are not unanimous on the subject. The Qur'an does not contain any call for FGM, but a few hadith (sayings attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) refer to it. In one case, in answer to a question put to him by 'Um 'Attiyah (a practitioner of FGM), the Prophet is quoted as saying ''reduce but do not destroy''. Mutilation has persisted among some converts to Christianity. Christian missionaries have tried to discourage the practice, but found it to be too deep rooted. In some cases, in order to keep converts, they have ignored and even condoned the practice. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AC...70061997en.html The Amnesty article notes that female genital mutilation is not practised by the majority of Muslims; but if you check on the map for the location of the nations where it is customary, you'll find that the most conservative, orthodox Muslim countries are where it predominates. The same could be said for Islamic dress codes foisted on women! Over the last 30 years, as Saudi Arabia as sent Salafist or Wahabbi teachers throughout the Muslim World, the restrictive dress codes have followed! You can expect the same dynamic with genital mutilation, since it is the hardline orthodox Muslims who are advocating for this practise! YOu can expect U.N. reports to be looking over their shoulder every time they write about practises or issues going on in the Muslim World! Take a look at how much they watered down their human rights proclamation to make it acceptable to Muslim leaders! So, the report states that 16% of Christian women in the Ivory Coast have had to undergo this procedure; but as the Amnesty article I linked points out, the practise of female genital mutilation among Christians in Africa is primarily a carry over among those who have converted to Christianity! The Christian Africans only have cultural tradition to support this practise; they do not have the weight of religious authorities ordering them to maintain it! Long story short, this issue will never be adequately dealt with as long as critics are afraid to call out the Muslim leaders who are trying to maintain the practise. It is just part of a toolbox of restrictions that include restrictive dress codes and discriminatory Sharia laws that prevent women from challenging male authority in the home, in their communities, and on the national stage!

There is no dancing around the fact that although female genital mutilation predates both Islam and Christianity, it has followed along with the spread of Islam around the world. The practise is prevalent to varying degrees in every Muslim-majority nation today, and finds its way to every country with a sizeable Muslim population: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/fema...in_page_id=1879 http://www.fgmnetwork.org/gonews.php?subac...amp;ucat=1& So, saying that this is just a cultural practise that has nothing to do with religion is a lie promulgated by apologists afraid to confront Islamic leaders who sanction mutilating girls. The practise never took hold in Christendom! I'd like to know if you have anything to back up your earlier statement that it is practised by both Christians and Muslims. Even male circumcision was not widely practised in Christian nations until the last century! That was one of the things the Nazis would check for if they were unable to determine whether a man was Jewish, or German or Polish.

As long as the state is in the business of licensing and regulating who can and who cannot get married, then they have an obligation to ensure fairness. From your link it's apparent that Barack Obama is trying to play to the church crowd by positioning himself as against gay marriage, but allowing civil union. The California Supreme Court had a good point about the weakness of this position by comparing it to the "separate but equal" segregationist policies that George Wallace and others tried to pass off as racial equality down South. And more than anyone else, a civil rights advocate should be able to see that he is advocating an unequal system! Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman." So, here comes the religious left! On many issues, they will not be any more reluctant about imposing their values on others than the religious right is! And I'm still a little bewildered by the argument that this is an issue for state and local governments, but not the federal government! Once certain states and provinces legalize gay marriage, what happens when they move to a state or province that doesn't recognize gay marriage?

Whether or not you appreciate Keith Olberman's 'Edward R. Murrow' imitation, you can't get around the fact that he was one of the few media pundits to go out on a limb - forcefully opposing the Bush Administration and the Iraq War back when both were popular, and he was continually under threat of going out the same way as Phil Donahue, for his troubles! Now we are beginning to discover the full extent that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon manipulated the media by sending in scripted military analysts: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/10/analysts/ Add that with the network scramble to have embedded reporters to serve as on site propagandists in the war zones, and it shows most of the media pundits and networks were more concerned about appearing unpatriotic in front of a public that was supporting the war, than they were about playing the role that journalists claim to perform - getting at the truth, and informing the public! Most of the reporters had access to sources in the CIA, Pentagon, State Dept. etc. and knew that the road to Baghdad was paved with lies; why didn't they open their mouths until the public started getting disenchanted when the "liberation" turned into a quagmire!

It's sickening how far conservatives have travelled down the road to fascism! Those courts were put in place as a safeguard to protect the rights of unpopular minorities from mob rule.....which is what the social conservatives are asking for. They want the right to use their majority to take away the rights of people who don't live the way they want them to! When I read the blather coming from these church groups who are so wound up to defend marriage, I have to ask why aren't they doing a better job fixing the broken marriages within their own communities? Maybe they need to ease off the preaching a little since conservative Christians have higher divorce rates than atheists and agnostics! http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm Maybe all that obsessing over sin and guilt has a damaging effect on married life! Let them fix their own house first and stop interfering with those homosexuals who feel that marriage arrangements with their partners would provide more stability and security in their lives.

Yeah! And how well did it work when he trotted "defense of marriage" out for the 2006 mid-term elections? The Republican Party has been travelling down the road of winning by stoking the fires of white, middleclass xenophobia for too long! Considering the three straight special congressional elections that they've all lost in Republican strongholds, I'm betting that the game of winning support by appealing to the fears and hatreds of the Republican base aren't going to work now that mainstream Republican voters are losing their jobs and having their homes foreclosed on! I challenge you to name one positive message in Republican politics these days! They are trying to win by feeding off of fear of terrorism, secular humanism, homosexuals, blacks, latinos............there hasn't been a positive, hopeful message in the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan!

No, it's generally not the people who reject religion who have the temper tantrums; it's the religious who get frustrated, angry and hostile when people - especially their children - refuse to follow the script! For all of the boasting and proclaiming of absolute certainty of faith that evangelicals proclaim, they show themselves to be fragile and insecure when faced with rejection! Converts to the faith give the evangelical confidence and assurance that they aren't fumbling in the dark, but have the truth - otherwise others wouldn't be joining! But rejection of the true faith gives the proselytizing evangelical an uncomfortable choice, they either have to question their new found faith, or they have to reject family members for refusing to see through "the eyes of faith." I've been through several different religions growing up, and after I left home at 17. And if I'm angry about this concept of dividing the "sheep" from the "goats," it has alot to do with situation when I left home; I had a choice - accept the Jehovah's Witness sect, or leave home! I chose to leave! That crazy, offbeat apocalyptic cult has probably broken up many families with their New Testament justification in Matthew 10 v.34 -36: 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. I think of those verses whenever I hear the family values blather...................... Jesus the homewrecker! Who says she's riding the fence, and who are you to declare that an emotional experience that you have interpreted as "Christ" has to apply to everyone else? By setting up your interpretation as the only one that's right, that inevitably means that everyone else in wrong! Not, just non-Christians, but Catholics and Protestants with different doctrines of salvation are also damned just the same as the unbeliever! So much for Pascal's Wager! I don't fully understand why my wife would rather hold on to her Catholic traditions (most of her family quit the Church), but obviously she chose not to reject her religion completely. Every generation since the first century has had end time preachers telling us that judgement day was coming. We are living in dangerous times now, but it's foolish to expect a magical divine intervention to save us now, since it didn't work in the past, and many believers acted wrecklessly because of their firm faith that God would intervene and deliver them from their enemies. In the first century, Judeans were certain that the Messiah would come and free them from Roman bondage. They were also sure that the temple in Jerusalem could not be destroyed. They were wrong on both counts! I am reminded of the first century Zealots, Essenes and other apocalyptic Jewish sects who were so sure that they would be delivered that they provoked a rebellion and subsequent Roman invasion, whenever I read about apocalyptic Christians who look upon an all out MiddleEast war as a sign of the 2nd Coming. They expect to be raptured before all hell breaks loose; but from where I see it, they are going to be stuck right here on Earth with the rest of us! Since you mention Sodom, what sort of yardstick did Yahweh use to decide who was righteous and who was unrighteous? I mean, if Lot, a man who throws his daughters to a mob in order to save the angels who were staying over at his house from the indignity of being raped; what were the bad guys like? Genesis 19 v. 5-8 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 19:6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 19:7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 19:8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. Later on, in verses 30 to 36, his daughters get him drunk and have sex with him. Charming family! Seriously, an in-depth reading of the Bible shows how different the values, interpretations of God, and even differ on what happens to us after we die. Part of the reason there are so many different religions, is because of the diversity of teachings in the 66 books of the bible. I find it every day! To me, this is not about trying to solve a riddle; it's a search for knowledge that I don't expect to end with having every question answered.

I think this is the point where we hit the Mexican Standoff! Your position is based on personal understanding that I don't really relate to. I'm not going to pretend that I can make completely objective judgements about how our Universe really functions; everybody has beliefs that they have built upon influence from people or sources that they trust, and the greater the degree of certainty about a belief, the greater the amount of emotional attachment to that belief. Nobody with a firm belief in whatever the subject is - can just give it up and walk away as soon as he or she hears something to the contrary. My goal is to try to limit the amount of emotional attachment I feel to my strongest beliefs, and after many decades of waffling a bit, I have always ended up rejecting religious interpretations, I have no doubt that my negative early experiences are a primary cause. But I have to carry that baggage with me and soldier on. I've never understood the point of liberal believers, such as my wife, who could be described as a liberal Catholic - she agrees with me on many of my beliefs, but for some reason that's foreign to me, finds value in maintaining her connection the the church of her mother, father and forebears. The church experience that she finds comforting, just leaves me bored and continually looking at my watch! So I guess we can't all agree to believe the same things! Since there is so much subjectivity in the way we form our core beliefs, it seems clear that there is always going to be a great diversity of belief. Hopefully, in the future, we will gradually come together on the most important issues that affect everyone - like surviving annihilation through nuclear war or environmental catastrophe or something similar. We don't have to all have the same beliefs about how we got here, to make some progress on issues of survival and improving the quality of life.

I remember this argument that a ban on 3rd trimester abortion is a wedge issue was raised a few years back, when Bill Clinton was president, and he vetoed a bill that would ban on "partial-birth" abortion. One of arguments against the ban, was that it could endanger the lives of women who were seeking to terminate the pregnancy for health reasons - since that was the main reason for the relatively small number of abortions performed late in pregnancy; and the other reason was the fear that it was a 'wedge' to gradually expand restrictions on abortion until the U.S. ended up with something like El Salvador - where a woman suspected of having an abortion can be manacled to a hospital bed and have her uterus treated like a crime scene awaiting investigation! But the nightmare 'El Salvador' scenario, depends on the acquiescence of a public which either believes in this policy, or is so afraid of the Church authorities, that they tolerate it! Even in the U.S., where there are greater numbers of pro-life absolute opponents of abortion, the majority of Americans continue to fall in the middle between the two opposing forces - even many of the people who identify themselves as pro-life, make exceptions for situations of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. This soft support for pro-life would fold if some sort of Catholic Church sanctioned total ban on abortion became the law. Much of the reason why the public agreed to the practical solution of legalizing abortion was because of nightmare situations such as happened to a family that lived on our street back in the early 60's: their estranged daughter had turned to prostitution and became pregnant; some time during 1962 - 63 she died from complications resulting from an illegal abortion. She was only 17 or 18 at the time. In this day and age, as soon as young women start dying as a result of "pro-life" laws, support will melt away! But, when it comes to third trimester abortion, it's worth asking if an abortion is sought because of something frivolous like the sex of the child not being the one desired by the parents, should that be regarded as virtually identical to the same parents killing their newborn because it is a girl and not a boy, for example? Right! A newborn's brain and neural networks still have to grow and develop for many years to come. I'm not sure if the law has changed since I was in high school, but when I took a Canadian Law class in grade 12, the crime of killing an infant under the age of 12 months was given the separate charge of infanticide. Becoming human is a very gradual process that begins at fertilization, and continues on through childhood, as awareness developes. A little off topic, and I'm not a PETA fanatic, but I have seen the public attitude towards intelligent animal life change during my lifetime. The livestock industry (especially factory farming) is going to face serious challenges to the legitimacy of the way they harvest cattle, pigs, chickens etc. in deplorable conditions that are only tolerated by the meat-eating public because it is done out of sight of everyone not involved in the livestock and meat processing industries. The traditional religion-based worldview was that man (which occasionally includes woman) was created separate, above the animal world and had dominion over them. Any pain and suffering of animals was not a consideration for people who lived before the modern age. But since the time scientific discovery has revealed us to be an animal on the primate branch of the mammalian kingdom with an oversized cerebral cortex, many modern people look at the lesser animals in a different light. In the long run, a desire to reduce human-caused animal suffering and the environmental costs of growing animals for consumption will likely lead to a vegetarian future. I think it should in cases like I mentioned above where a late term abortion will be performed for non-life threatening reasons. Traditional societies that give women little value or respect, like India and China, have found they are experiencing an imbalance in the natural male/female dynamic because of abortions of female foetuses. This is not only infanticide, it is also creating a dangerous imbalance in their populations, with too many young men seeking out too few young women. Since the majority of people are somewhere in the middle of pro-life and pro-choice, a middleground position might be a greater protection for abortion rights in general, since it will take the ugly issue of 'partial-birth' abortion off the table. When the pro-life zealots hold up sickening posters featuring pictures of aborted foetuses at their rallies, it's the late term aborted foetuses that are their poster children. A picture of an aborted zygote isn't developed enough to look human and cannot provide a sufficient emotional response for propaganda purposes.

No, it's you and your nazi stormtroopers who need to be finished off!

They're not pro-abortion; they just find it easier to privatize the ethical issues surrounding abortion and leave everything up to the woman! In most cases, that's probably the right course of action, since any state interference by a pro-life legal system is going to restrict the rights of the pregnant woman. But at some stage, by the third trimester, the foetus is capable of living outside the womb and starting to develop the cerebral cortex level of the brain that generates our conscious awareness. It's easier to privatize all moral decisions, but this might be a point where the judges should consider that they may have to decide between the competing rights of the mother and the foetus.

I don't know if it's at all possible to separate the politics from an abortion debate, but what if the 2nd or 3rd trimester foetus does deserve some protection from harm! Right off the bat, this pits the rights of the mother against the right to life of the foetus, but it's worth considering that there is no magic line of demarcation that makes it a person just at the point where it leaves the womb. Between 26 and 32 weeks, it's likely that the foetus is developing some ability to sense pain, since it is during this time that the neural connections are being made between the thalamus and the developing cerebral cortex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain If the third trimester foetus is developing a pain-sense, does that create a moral obligation to protect it from harm except for conditions such as when the mother's health is at risk or there are congenital defects that will reduce the quality of life.