abram.kelly

I know the Republicans in the three branches of the Federal Government do a terrific job of catering to lobbyists. But lobbyists can only give them money, not votes. So which voters feel "represented"?

For example, when the GOP blocks a bill aimed at giving healthcare to poor kids and paying for it by taxing tobacco, who is sitting at home saying, Boy, I sure am glad we sent that guy to Washington, he definitely knows what my values are. Or when the House's energy policy is held up because it cuts government subsidies for private oil companies - aren't conservatives supposed to oppose subsidies on principle? Or is it just subsidies for Clean energy that they can't live with?

It seems to me like the only people being represented here are Big Oil, Big Tobacco, and smokers who care more about cheap cigarettes than about their kids getting cancer from second-hand smoke. But maybe I'm not seeing the Big Picture. Could one of you loyal conservative voters please explain it to me?

Is this explained somewhere in the Bible? Because I can't find it anywhere.

If it's not explained anywhere, then how can God be used as an explanation for the origin of anything? If you say that God created the universe, but can't explain who or what created God, then we're no closer to understanding the origin of the universe than we were before we heard your explanation.

Which begs the question, if you don't know the answer, why bother opening your mouth?

to be the nominal Leader of the Free World, which would you pick?

For those who don't know, a plasmodium slime mold is a type of fungi which feeds on manure and appears as a slimy yellow blob. If you are unsure of the difference between the two options, you're in good company.

I keep seeing answers from Christians stating that atheists just need to read the Bible and ask God to help them understand it. This strikes me as proof that Christians are incapable of grasping basic rationality.

An Atheist is someone who believes all natural phenomona have rational explanations, and since God is irrational, he/she/it cannot exist. Why would you ask a non-existant entity for anything?

Let's look at this logically:

1) In order to have faith in God, I must read and understand the Bible.

2) In order to understand the Bible, I must ask God for guidance.

3) In order to ask God for guidance, I must have faith in God.

Do you see the problem?

If God is the Creator of both the Bible and my brain, why would He make them fundamentally incompatible unless He wanted me to burn in Hell? All He had to do is either have the Bible be compliant with some logical framework that was not totally self-contradictory, or else make me a lot dumber, so I wouldn't notice. But since he made His Holy Word full of inconsistencies, and made me smart enough to figure that out, I can only assume that my eternal damnation was part of God's Divine Plan from the beginning. So, when I say that God is a silly fairytale invented to frighten children and has no place in rational discourse, I'm really doing God's work, right?

According to John 14:6, no one shall come to the Father except through me [Jesus]. But that can't possibly be true. If it was, then anyone who never heard of Jesus because they were born on the wrong continent or in the wrong century would be damned. So would the souls of aborted fetuses, stillborn babies, and any child who died without baptism. So would people with severe mental retardation, who might hear about Jesus but have no hope of understanding. Surely God doesn't intend for all these innocent people to spend eternity in Hell because they didn't accept Christ.

Ignorance of the Gospel must therefore be an acceptable reason for not accepting Christ. The only ones who are sent to Hell are the ones who knew about Christ and rejected Him. So by teaching the Gospel, you are forcing people to make a choice; and if they make the wrong choice, they pay with their souls. But if you told them nothing, they would be saved by their ignorance. How then is Evangelism not evil?

Suppose you're born to a Navajo tribe sometime in the eleventh century AD. You are instructed in all the religious traditions of your people. You perform the sacred rites needed to make it rain on time, and do all the things that God requires, as far as you understand it. Then you die, and find out that you have to spend eternity suffering in Hell. Why? Because the Son of God was born on another continent thousands of miles away, and apparently died for your sins, but you never accepted him as your Lord and Savior. Oops, your mistake.

Is this really how it works? God may be apparent to all in nature, but Christ's sacrifice is not. How can God punish good people who had no chance to accept Jesus?

On the other hand, if God saves the ignorant, then what's the point of evangelism? If you can only go to Hell if you actively reject Christ, but not if you never heard of Him, then teaching the Gospel is just about the most evil thing you can do.

An Australian aborigine born in AD 1200 could not possibly encounter a Christian missionary, so they would not have the option of accepting Jesus. Since "No one comes to the Father except through [Jesus] (John 14:6 NIV)", this means all aborigines born before the British colonized Australia are doomed to spend all eternity in Hell, doesn't it? Same thing goes for everyone born in North and South America prior to 1492, as well as those born in sub-Saharan Africa before the European colonization in the 19th century.

Is being born on the wrong continent really such a horrible sin? If so, can you explain how this fits your definition of a Just and Merciful God? And if not, please show me the biblical passage which contradicts John 14:6 and says you can go to heaven without accepting Jesus Christ.

How would you feel if you died and discovered that Paradise is filled not only with everyone who practiced your particular faith, but everyone else as well? Christians, but also Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Agnostics, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists. Preachers and God-fearing church-goers, but also adulterers, fornicators, prostitutes, homosexuals, necromancers, axe-murderers, and child molesters. Would you be happy that nobody had to spend all eternity suffering unimaginable agonies in Hell? Or would you be annoyed that you had to share your eternal reward with so many undeserving sinners?

Did people of English ancestry get riled up after 'Braveheart'? After all, Mel Gibson's retelling was hardly historically accurate, and portrayed the English as both mean and incompetent. The English looked even worse when they lost their grip on France to a little girl in 'Joan of Arc', but still no complaint. Was there a public outcry from Egypt after Charlton Heston delivered his people from slavery in 'Ten Commandments'? Or how about the Italian reaction to 'Spartacus', where a Thracian-born slave brings the Roman Empire to its knees?

Apparently these other cultures that have been maligned by ancient history have managed not to take it personally. Are Iranians just really thin-skinned?

People are always asking for examples of profound, meaningful bible passages. While I'm sure you have several pithy quotes at your disposal, I'm more interested in those really pointless, meandering passages, where you're just like, Why the hell would somebody include that bit of drivel in God's Holy Word?

So go ahead, give me your best drivel.

The Saudis have threatened to lend political support to the Sunni insurgency in the current sectarian struggle in Iraq. This is because the Saudis depend heavily on support from the Wahabi, an Islamic fundamentalist movement with strong ties to Al Queda. Which is odd, since Al Queda's top priority right now is overthrowing the Saudi monarchy. On the other side is the Shi'ite insurgency, supported by the Ayatollah in Iran and Hasbullah in Lebanon, both committed to the violent overthrow of Israel, our other ally in the Middle East. So the playing field is filled with literally dozens of groups who are committed to each other's violent end, and who are willing to ally with us only in so far as we support their immediate agenda: killing somebody else. Does anybody seriously think there's a political solution in there somewhere?

The Administration keeps saying they can't use any kind of "time-table" for withdrawing US troops from Iraq, because then the insurgents could just lie low until after the troops are gone. I'm wondering what they think the insurgents are planning to do then. Their main hobby so far has been killing US troops - won't that be sort of difficult without any US troops around?

It's one thing to lay down your life to help drive out the evil foreign invaders. But how many Iraqis are going to volunteer to blow themselves up just for the exercise?

Activist judges have been circumventing the proper checks and balances, writing public policy that hasn't been approved by the legislature. Recently it has been by allowing gay marriages, just because laws protecting the sanctity of marriage are "unconstitutional".

But the problem with activist judges is a lot older than the gay marriage issue. For example, a judge in Worcester, Mass heard a case between a slave and his master in 1783. He ruled that slavery was not legally sanctioned in the state of Massachusetts, so all slaves in the state were free. So just because there wasn't technically any law authorizing the sale of humans into permanent servitude, this lone, activist judge cheated hundreds of law-abiding citizens out of their property! Instead of letting the voters decide, through their duly elected representatives in Congress - which they did a mere 80 years later.

What else will these activist judges decide is "unconstitutional"?

The real issue isn't that some people like performing abortions. The issue is unwanted pregnancies. Abortion is a solution to this problem. Some people feel it is an unacceptable solution, and I for one respect their opinions. But instead of screaming about it, why not come up with a viable alternative? Adoption is only an alternative to raising a child, not an alternative to the pregnancy itself. If you want to put an end to abortions, come up with a way to transplant the fetus to a willing mother, or even a device to bring a fetus to term artificially - in vitro for the full 9 months. Better yet, create a simple, cheap, and flawless method of birth control, that all women (or men) could get at the onset of puberty; you'd have to take voluntary, responsible action to get pregnant, not to avoid it.

Calling desperate women "baby killers" isn't going to work. If you really care about the issue and aren't just using it as a political rallying point, why not address the real problem?

Ben Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Those who support the Bush Administration's right to open mail or tap phone calls in order to catch terrorists are giving up essential liberty to obtain a little safety. When liberals complain about this, they are accused of hating America. So obviously Ben Franklin must have hated America too, right?

Why do you suppose someone would work so hard to build a country that they hated?

Like for example signing the Postal Reform Act and saying, Oh, by the way, in some circumstances we might decide to open up your first-class mail without a warrant, even though that's illegal and no laws have actually been changed to allow it.

Whenever Bush does one of his Signing Statements, it has the effect of saying "We might choose not to follow this or that law at some point in the future, if we feel like it." Which doesn't actually convey any information - he's not saying he's changed the law, he's not saying he is for sure going to break the law. He's just saying that he COULD break the law if he wanted to. So Americans really have no idea which laws are enforceable until the President decides, for sure, whether or not he likes them.

If he's going to break the law, he can face impeachment like everyone else. Otherwise, why the hell is he bothering to open his mouth?

Republicans keep trying to pass an amendment to ban flag burning, but how come there's never been a legislative effort to stop people from urinating or defacating on the Constitution? Why is one offensive while the other is just politics as usual?

If you are wondering who has been relieving himself on the US Constitution, the answer is of course G. Dubya Bush. That's what he's doing when he arbitrarily expands executive powers to supercede civil liberties: declaring that 220 years of constitutional precedent deserves as much respect as toilet paper.

The Bush White House had the last 6 years to work on cooperation and bi-partisanship. Instead, those years were characterized by phrases like "I've got political capital, and I'm going to spend it." The Administration did everything it could to push through legislation that only appealed to Bush's Ultra-Conservative base. Like trying to eliminate taxes on the uber-rich. Or repealing the estate tax, so that billionaire's children could keep more of their parents' money. Or blocking funding for stem cell research, something that 73% of Americans feel should be funded.

Yet now that he's lost his legislative majority, the President has suddenly discovered the virtues of cooperation? Does anyone else think this sounds a little pathetic?

If you look at the number of Americans killed by terrorists in the past 10 years, compared to the number killed in all other preventable ways, you will see that a lot of Americans die but a tiny fraction result from terrorism. If you look at the amount of time and money spent combating all the other ways Americans die vs the War on Terror, you have to wonder if terrorists do something besides kill people. Isn't death pretty much the same regardless of the cause? Whether killed by a drunk driver, or shot during a bank robbery, or murdered by a jealous ex-lover, or blown up by a suicide bomber, don't you end up with the same result? So why does our government obsess over one while virtually ignoring all the others? Especially since the only way terrorism works is when the victims consistently allow themselves to be terrified by the very thought?