I don’t think it’s a race thing.  A decade ago, when I was attempting to make the olympic team in judo, many girls would have a bar-bodies test done to determine gender.  Obviously what she is going through is much more intensive than a blood test, but it’s not all that unusual.  Unfortunately, some unscrupulous people have both slipped men into women’s sports, or they have given a tremendous amount of testosterone for better performance.

 That being said, I certainly do feel for her. 

Oh, I would disagree that those of us who did not have a religous faith can not understand the mindset of people who do.  It’s nice to believe that there are specific rules to follow, that there is someone who loves you and is more powerful than you looking out for you, and that after death things will be peachy.  Not to mention that human beings are social animals and we like to belong to a group.  It gives us warm fuzzies.

Atheists aren’t vain, and they don’t really choose to not believe in a God any more than you’re vain for not believing in the same God as the Wiccans.  (And I highly doubt that you chose to do that.)  A person who is atheist has no belief in a god.  For the most part, they’ve seen nothing to suggest one (or many) exists.  Very few of them have a hard atheistic viewpont of "there is no god".

Wouldn’t it be nice if a conversation about not making a mockery of someone’s faith would work?  I actually used this exact arguement with my mother when she wanted me to be confirmed.  Esentially she said that she viewed that the letter of the law was far more important than the spirit behind it.  Getting confirmed would "save" me regardless of what I exactly believed.

I think I’ve always had a scientific mindset, and I found that man-made religions didn’t really fit into that mindset even when I was a fairly small child.  After all, when push comes to shove, almost all religions seems equally arbitrary when it comes to the rules, the nature of the creater, etc.  What’s funny is that when I was quite young, I didn’t think anyone really believed the religion thing.  I viewed it more like Santa Claus.  Everyone plays along with the Santa Claus idea because it’s fun, nice and we get presents.  But obviously no one believes that a fat old man comes down the chimney and delivers presents.  It was completely shocking to me in CCD when I realized that people actually believed the Bible and stuff, and weren’t just playing along becaues the idea of Jesus was a nice one.

I do think having a predefined religion can make things easier for a person.  But, I can’t honestly say that I think any one has it more right than any others.  Certainly there are some religions I approve of more, due to their good works and the like.  And I can certainly understand why people would like the sense of community one gets with the practice of a religion.  But, I would feel like a hypocrite attending something that I didn’t really believe.  Though, I suppose there are always the Unitarians.

A person’s religion should not give them special rights.  On the other hand, rules and laws shouldn’t be put in place merely to exclude people who follow a particular religion.  If the rule is no head coverings in court, then I don’t see why being religous should give a person a pass on this rule.  However, if the rule is only in place due to the tradition of men removing their hats and not due to some legitimate functionality, then I feel that this woman has every right to sue in order to change the rules.

For those who say that people in America should follow "american ways and normalcy" or whatever, I would like to point out the the whole point of America is that we don’t have one set of cultural rules that everyone follows.  Does the term, "melting pot" have any meaning to you?  The reason our country was sucessful in the the past was that we allowed people of all different cultures to come here and keeps as much or as little as their culture as they desired.  This increased innovation, which is quite important. 

It did always seem weird to me that a being who is described as a god of love would set someone on fire for all eternity merely for not following the right set of fairly arbitrary rules.  I certainly wouldn’t do something so horrible to my worst enemy, and I am far from a saint! 

Agnostic does not mean that you have not decided what you believe.  Agnosticism is a belief in and of itself.  An agnostic either believes that the truth with respect to god(s) and her nature is unknown or that the truth is not only unknown, but unknowable.  We are not simply waiting around to pick a "proper" religous belief.

I think that it’s best to have the arguement before you meet the guy and start planning the wedding.  Is this really a scene you want to have at that late a date?  I certainly didn’t.  Fortunately I broke with my parents’ faith at the age of 13 and told them I would never step in a catholic church for a religous ceremony again, except for weddings or funerals.  So, that was taken care of long before I ever met my husband.

There may be a lot of felons who will make something of themselves given a chance.  I simply don’t think that chance should involve both weapons and risking other people’s lives.  I certainly think it would be appropriate if there was a way a felon who has committed a single crime could get his record expunged so that he can seek employment without having a scarlet letter.  But, I think when it comes to the military, it’s not fair to the other soldiers to further risk their lives by placing someone who already has shown that he doesn’t follow the rules, and already has shown a certain disregard for human live other than his own.

Dona, why did you hit return so many times?  It makes replying rather difficult as I need to scroll up and down to see what you’ve written.

In any case, I feel your statement is emotional hyperbole.  In the past men have been able to receive a draft deferment due to the impact on their dependents.  For instance, one of Cheney’s five draft deferments was because he had recently become a father.  So, I think there is already a system in place to make sure that draftees aren’t leaving their children behind.  I think that a little tinkering could insure that men and women who have sole custody of their children can not be drafted.

 In any case, woman are becoming mothers for the first time, on average, at the age of 25.  Given the nature of war, I do not think that we’d want to increase the age of draftees.  Even at the age of 30, I’ve noticed I don’t bounce like I used to….  So this would mean that the overlap between mothers and draftees is smaller (and if parents of small children get deferment, young mothers would already be exempted…..)

You also seem to imply that all of these single mothers would be drafted.  That would be difficult to do with a randomly drawn draft, unless we were to enlist everyone between the age of 18 and 25 into the army.  If we get into a war that bad, I suspect that worrying about who is going to raise their children will be a moot point because civilization will cease to exist.  In any case, in Vietnam, only a little over 2 million out of 27 million eligible people were drafted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States) .  So, even if we did not offer deferments to parents, you’re still talking about ~8%.    You also seemed to believe that all of the people drafted will be killed and history has not shown that to be true.

Personally, I think it would be best if we avoid ever using the draft again.  However, I think that the time has come that if we expect men to register for it, we should also expect women to register for it.  Given the political suicide that bringing the draft would be, I am pretty confident that this would only happen in the direst emergency.  If there is such an emergency, then women should shoulder part of the responsibility for protecting our rights and our country.

One party does not equal one person.  A government run by one person can be a dictatorship, a theocracy, a monarchy, etc.  But, communism is not this.  Not only that, but neither Bin Laden nor Hussein subscribed to the Marxism.  Now, I would agree that I would not want our country run by a dictator.  But, words have meaning and it is important when it comes to a political system to be absolutely clear.  One of the issues we face here in America is the idea that socialism = communism = evil automatically.  So, many useful programs are simply shouted down by people screaming about socialism and its ills, regardless of whether the program is socialist in nature or whether socialism is inherently bad.

I am of the opinion that no pure economic or government system works well.  It is always best to mix and match to get a proper balance of power.

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.  I would agree that we’ve lost a lot of freedoms since 9-11 due the Patriot Act and its ilk.  Realistically the increased inconvenience of flying really pales in comparison.  However, this lost freedom is not the fault of Bin Laden, and it especially wasn’t the fault of Hussein.

We didn’t listen to Ben Franklin and gave up our liberty out of fear…..