Melanie_

You're right - there isn't any way to prove to anyone that God or Allah or Zeus or Odin or Ishtar or Osiris or Shiva or any other deity actually exists. So in the absence of objective data, any religious belief is subjective, and cannot be defined as the "truth". This really is what bothered me about the sign - the statement that atheists were "suppressing" the truth, when there in fact is no truth to suppress. In this context, truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and can't be generalized from one person to another.

Don't tell kimmy! She'll come over with her wire cutters...

Well, now I have a weekend project! If I find out where to get some of it, I'll let you know if I'm still an atheist on Monday!

Actually, I think that is what the church was doing. Now I don't believe every church would do so, therefore I'm not making a blanket statement about all Christians. You, however, are joining them in making a blanket statement about all atheists.

Wait, I'm confused. Do atheists get stoned every day, too, or is it just socialists? Are they miserable while they are stoned? Where can I get my army pants and tie dyed T shirt?

I was driving past a church today, and read the sign out front: "Atheism isn't merely a denial of the truth, but a suppression of it." As I continued to drive, I thought that there is no way a church would post such an attack about other belief systems - can you imagine what would happen if you substituted the word Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism in that sign? Why is atheism seen as such a threat?

I can't see how it is setting women's liberation back at all. Women's lib was about being free from being controlled by men either personally (fathers, husbands, brothers, etc) or societally (government, religion, social norms and values). This woman is free to make a choice, good or bad, and follow through on it (or not) of her own volition. Its like the old saying, "I may not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Feminists might not like the choice she is making, but they have to agree that it is her choice to make.

Well, I can't remember that far back, so I won't even try to think about my first time. Big Al, while I agree that it is good fun to provoke extremists, I don't think that extreme feminists would be bothered by this. Extreme misogynists, maybe, who want to control what a woman does with her body, or extreme followers of religion, who think there is some Magic Sky Pixie judging all of our actions. As I said before, feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices, so I think this girl would be in most feminists' good books, too.

Feminists fought (and continue to fight) for a woman's right to do what she wishes with her own body; this is an extension of that, so I don't see why feminists would be bitter. Argus... You must be lots of fun on Valentine's Day. You remind me of the classic words of Billy Joel: But you're probably right, it might not seem like such a dumb choice to those of us who are well past adolescence, and who see the starry eyed romance of first love as not nearly as valuable as 3.5 million.

Well, at least John provided us with a link to the boob tube coverage. I've sunk to a new low....

No global warming in Winnipeg. With the windchill factor, we hit -51C today. Where's Al Gore when you need him?

Ahh, the boob jokes. You guys are hilarious.

There is a big push here in Winnipeg to raise awareness of the exploitation of children in the sex trade industry. The legal age of consent for most sex is 16 (although we continue to have a double standard, with the legal age for anal sex being 18), so even if a 14 year old "consents" and takes money from someone, he or she is not legally old enough to give consent. The buyer is a pedophile and the seller is a victim. After they have reached the age of consent, is there truly a victim and an exploiter? The seller could have been a victim of many things in his/her life, but it is still that person's choice to offer sex for money. Maybe for drugs, maybe to feed a hungry baby, maybe to pay the bills... If he/she is doing it as a clear choice, without coercion from someone else, I don't see them as a victim of the buyer.

Whoa, Charter Rights, you've been talking to Oleg and Mr. C. too long. How often do you heal the sick and raise the dead? Does Medicare know about this?

How sweet. God has shown you the path to righteousness. You must be pretty special.

I'm a mom of 4 - 3 still in their teens, one grown and gone from home. I've always thought that I have about the first 16 years to instill the values that I think will serve my children well. After that, I have to trust that I've done my job, and that they will take those values and live them when I'm not by their side. Having said that, this isn't really about parenting, it is about an individual making a choice. I may think it is a dumb choice, but who am I to judge her? She is the one who has to justify it to herself, and live with it.

How can you claim there is any true god? This is the problem with religion - everyone thinks theirs is the one that is "right". That is how belief works, and I have no problem with someone holding beliefs that seem good and right to them, but you can't say that one god or set of beliefs is right for everyone.

I've read Mere Christianity, many years ago. It's an interesting read, but I don't share his belief in some universal moral code we are all supposed to know and adhere to. Maybe I'll find a copy again and give it another go, but its unlikely I'll change my views based on his logic. If the people who believe in god far outnumber non believers, what are you so worried about? And how is the higher number of believers evidence of a secular socialist war on Jesus Christ? You're just not making sense.

Why on earth would anyone want to worship such a nasty god as the one you describe? Your god is a jerk, Mr. C.

The bible is a collection of folk stories and fairy tales. Read "The Uses of Enchantment", by Bruno Bettleheim, or "The Power of Myth", by Joseph Campbell, to understand the value of these stories, but don't confuse them with reality.

Of course it's not racism.... Crime is crime, and people are people - crime occurs in every racial and cutural group. Check your statistics before you claim that you mostly have trouble with blacks; I bet that crime occurs right across the board, in proportion to the numbers of people in any particular group you choose to identify.

His abortion agenda is certainly a factor for me, although not the only issue I disagree with him on. But the idea of him chairing a secretive all party caucus doesn't sit well with me - who else is on this caucus, and how much priority does this issue have for him? Presumably, if he is chair, he is devoting time to a personal agenda rather than representing the interests of South Winnipeg on issues that actually have a chance of seeing the light of day.

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about the Conservatives. Rod Bruinooge comes to mind - and since he is currently my MP, I won't be voting Conservative (OK, I probably wouldn't anyway, but Bruinooge has done nothing to garner my vote).

I know that you don't read long posts, Mr. C., so I just want to call your attention to PT's question in case you missed it.

You're right, I'm making assumptions based on my views of parental roles, and I know better than to do that. We don't really know what their relationship was like, and if it bears any resemblance to my assumptions, or anyone elses'. And now they will likely be going through a reassessment of the relationship, in whatever form, and deciding if the relationship was based solely on biology and finances, or if there is something more tying them together. I'm reluctant to see the role of a father boil down to just dollars and cents, though, which is what I am reading in your posts.