At 05:44 AM 8/9/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I think that denigrating anyone's religious beliefs is bigoted.
>Unfortunately, in this day and age, we feel free to do so when at the same
>time people who object to Clinton's escapades in the White House are
>considered close-minded and overly judgmental. Why do we (generic we) fell
>obligated and justified in rationalizing the immoral acts of some people
>while at the same time we feel obligated and justified in mocking the moral
>beliefs of others?
>Just a thought, Dena. I couldn't resist.
>Diana in Cincinnati

I don't think the vast majority of the people feel the way you say about
the "White House Escapade."  Personally I think anyones beliefs should
be open to question.  In fact, I think it's an important part of any
free society to question any idea.  Why should someone's religeous
beliefs, ideas and dogmas be regarded as unassailble?  Are they so
weak that they could not stand up to question?

Probably all of
up find some religeous beliefs ludicrous such as sun worship or human
sacrifice.  Would you be so generous?  Certainly, some religeous groups
have taken offence at criticisms, satire and even mocking to the
degree of killing the offender.  I guess Galileo had the gall to offend
Christendom with his heretical views and I dare say mocked those who
thought differently.  (Even though he proved to be right.)

Anyway, I find such views to be tyrranical and something that is
typical of the current diet and medical fads that brook no
discussion.  (I knew I could get this back to a paleo topic... ;-))


  Wade Reeser