Free Republic

Agreed, though I disagree with your dictionary definition of the word rather than the older definition of the word which is: carnal affections between men and young boys. That's the typical expression that male homosexuality takes on and if the PC press had used that term rather than pedophilia, most people would've had to look it up and the general public would've realized "the bill of goods" that the proponents of "it just a sexual-orientation" continue to try to sell us.

Isn't same-sex sodomy a little redundant? As for me, pederasty will do just as well.

Didn't Aristotle define God as pure act? Wouldn't this God transcend nature?

In that sense, yes. But I was thinking more along the lines of cosmology and the theory of creation ex nihilo. Aristotle's God is confined to a universe with no beginning or end. I think the God of revealed religion proposes not a God confined to a universe with no beginning or end(Aristotelian), or a cyclic one of creation/re-creation(Eastern), but one which transcends even those. One who gives purpose as to why there's even a universe at all.

Your church as well as many churches which have succumbed to the "liberal worldview" are facing schisms over exactly this "Problem of Homosexuality." The Roman Catholics are clear on this point and that's because they rely on a Magisterium of learned scholars who are familiar with what I would call this "God Stuff." They could easily point out what the problem is and the why. If C.S. Lewis were alive today he'd point it out as well, and it's because he as well as the Cardinal Newman and Bellah knew a few things that have somehow alluded some of your bishops, and in fact all of them would have pointed out that would not only become a problem for the churches but one which has a major conseqences for society as a whole.
One of the problems of the modern liberal viewpoint is that the results of it's prescriptions for achieving a more just and equitable society end up violating the "law of unintended consequences." We've only now begun to see it with regards to having bought into the argument that "sexual orientation" is a defining characteristic of a "protected class" of people somewhat analogous to race. That in itself was the first error. Instead of defining homosexual acts as contrary to the "natural law" as defined by Aristotle (hardly a Christian) we "moderns" lost insight as to why it is contrary to "natural law" because "natural law" arguments fell into disfavor around the middle of the 19th century.
The irony of all of this, is that the "Founding Fathers" used the same arguments in the structuring of our political economy. If you're interested in finding out how much the "natural law" has fallen into disfavor, point out that when Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" he was using an argument straight out of Aristotle's "Nicomachaen Ethics" and see how many blank stares you get. On top of this, Aristotle references the God of Nature in his argument and any theologian or moral philosopher can point out, that this doesn't necessarily have to be the transcendent deity embraced by monotheism. In fact Aristotle's metaphysics places this God intrinsic in Nature instead of being transcendent. Something that was felt to be a short-coming by both Moses Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas but is an actual advantage when it comes to making a "natural law" argument, because it allows you to select any God of you're understanding, even if it's the "God of Science."

One of the problems of the modern liberal viewpoint is that the result of it's prescriptions for achieving a more just and equitable society ends up violating the "law of unintended consequences." We've only now begun to see it after having bought into the argument that "sexual orientation" is a defining characteristic of a "protected class" of people somewhat analogous to race. That in itself was the first error. Instead of defining homosexual acts as contrary to the "natural law" as defined by Aristotle (hardly a Christian) we "moderns" lost insight as to why it is contrary to "natural law" because "natural law" arguments fell into disfavor around the middle of the 19th century. The irony of all of this, is that the "Founding Fathers" used the same arguments in the structuring of our political economy. If you're interested in finding out how much the "natural law" has fallen into disfavor, point out that when Jefferson wrote "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" he was using an argument straight out of Aristotle's "Nicomachaen Ethics" and see how many blank stares you get. On top of this, Aristotle references the God of Nature in his argument and any theologian or moral philosopher can point out, that this doesn't necessarily have to be the transcendent deity embraced by monotheism. In fact Aristotle's metaphysics places this God intrinsic in Nature instead of being transcendent. Something that was felt to be a short-coming by both Moses Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas but is an actual advantage when it comes to making a "natural law" argument, because it allows you to select any God of you're understanding, even if it's the "God of Science."

This will sound rather strange, but the symbol itself was supposed to represent a nuclear bomber. There's a painting from 1963 (the time of the ban the bomb movement) called "Leopardskin Nuclear Bomber No2" by a Colin Self which if you look at it has the same profile of the portions of the symbol inside the peace sign's circle; evidence that the symbol represented a bomber with swept back wings.

It was the symbol for the "ban the bomb" movement in the early sixties in Britain. It was brought from there and used to represent the "peace movement" in the US. The only peace which resulted from this movement was the peace of the grave suffered by the victims of totalitarian regimes. The irony is the participants in the movement feel they were on the the side of right and so feel not one iota of shame despite the lessons of history.

I know of no Bush judicial nominees which he failed to be support in committee vote and that includes the judges painted as too Catholic or failed to meet the "pro-choice litmus test" by the dems.

It won't necessarily require two election to get a filibuster proof Senate; but we're not going to get one any sooner if one doesn't realize that rinos will vote in a fashion maintaining party unity. Do you think the conservative or moderate dems (few though they might be) favor fillibustering Bush's judicials nominees. I don't think so. Will they support a fillibuster? Yes! and that's because they know politics ain't bean-bag.

Ditto! I'll vote for any rino if I think it can get a filibuster proof Senate. That's the goal! The the only way we're going to gain ground in the "culture wars" is by getting more conservative justices appointed to the courts. I see no problem with this in respect to Arlen. Or his place on the judiciary committee.

It's sickening how the dems have turned this into a partisan affair, when they know fullwell that Clinton would've probably pursued a similar approach if the same thing had happened on his watch. It would've been done with less vigor and perhaps not planned as well stategically, but it still would've been done. It's just further evidence that they have no principles!

The pundits and those on the left got and continue to get this war wrong. We didn't invade Iraq in order to get the oil for Haliburton or complete the job that should've been done in Persian Gulf War I. We invaded and easily conquered Iraq for reasons which these folks "seemingly miss", which I don't believe is because they're obtuse! There were three potential countries in the Middle East which we could use to provide forward basing for the continued war on terror: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Syria probably would've been easier than Iraq and while Iran probably would've been tougher--it is/was unlike Iraq, probably more amenable to "nation-building." But in neither country did we have causus belli. That made Iraq unique. One would have to be a poor student of geography to not notice Iraq's location with regards to those other two countries. We know that our invasion has had an effect on Syria, plus a few others countries e.g. Libya and maybe if we're lucky it might forment a popular uprising in Iran and result in the overthrow of the mullahs. Not too bad for killing not two birds, but a few birds with one stone

The pundits and those on the left got and continue to get this wrong. We didn't invade Iraq in order to get the oil for Haliburton or complete the job that should've been done in Persian Gulf War I. We invaded and easily conquered Iraq for reasons which these folks "seemingly miss", which I don't believe is because they're obtuse! There were three potential countries in the Middle East which we could use to provide forward basing for the continued war on terror: Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Syria probably would've been easier than Iraq and while Iran probably would've been tougher--it is/was unlike Iraq, probably more amenable to "nation-building." But in neither country did we have causus belli. That made Iraq unique.

One would have to be a poor student of geography to not notice Iraq's location with regards to those other two countries. We know that our invasion has had an effect on Syria, plus the others mentioned in the article and maybe if we're lucky it might forment a popular uprising in Iran and result in the overthrow of the mullahs. Not too bad for killing not two birds, but a few birds with one stone

I can keep my comments quite sucinct and pithy by the following: Lady Isabel Burton the wife of Sir Richard Burton, the famous British explorer, linguist and basic polymath said regarding Arabs: "Out of the very stones they will fabricate such a tower of falsehoods that you can only stand and gaze in wonder and admiration at their fruitful invention."

Of course, in this case there's very little to admire!

I love it, his "church's" traditions seem to be a re-hash right out of AA, albeit a short version.

He said in his homily something about Catholics being pissed off about the church's handling of the child abuse crisis. I'd tell him "No sir! We're pissed off about the church allowing the homosexual priests(i.e pederasts)running rapaciously thru our seminaries and using their office to feed their narcissistic desires."

It's almost laughable that he quotes disingenuously from Catholic Theology about once being a priest always a priest. Yes--always a priest--an apostate one and soon to be excommunicated one.

I didn't know there were all that many Seminoles in Oklahoma. Now if Floridian Seminoles have a complaint with this, that might be of some interest, especially if the school is still using the symbolism which is so offensive. Given that Seminoles in the state don't seem to be making the complaint, and the school's no longer using the symbolism; I would suggest the Oklahoman's "get a life."

This would actual be a good reason to apportion the state's electoral votes, rather then winner take all. If all state's did it that way it would actually increase voter turnout because one would know that their vote actually counted.

It would also eliminate something like the so called Florida debacle(not what I call it, I call it Al Gore trolling for votes). No candidate's going to call for a recount unless it's in a number of closely held districts where the candidate might be able to change the electoral college results. And even there it would require a sufficient number of districts in order to win the state and get the additional 2 electoral votes.

Another upside is that it reduces the clout of any political party in large states which typically vote either one way or the other: because gains by one party are offset by gains of the other and vice versa.

I agree with your partitioning. One of the problems the state has is that urban areas have far too much clout(specifically the Bay Area and greater Los Angeles). If state senatorial districts weren't apportioned equally according to population rather than along regional or county lines, this would be less of a problem, because regional interest be they urban(mostly liberal) or less urban more rural(more conservative)would have at least equal representation in half the legislature. As it now stands, we probably should just define the houses as assembly I and assembly II.

One solution would be to partition the state into districts which represent regional interest which have roughly equal apportionment in population. This wouldn't accomplish what would be the results of breaking up the state but it would go a long way to reducing the clout two areas of the state have in one house of the legislature.

Feinstein is being as is usual typically disengenuous with respect to this issue. It's really not all that important except for the fact that's also reflective of the current debate over "partial birth" abortion

Feinstein is logically inconsistent in many ways the least being that she's opposed to using elective abortion for selecting the sex of the child. Or should I say gender. I still wonder what she would think about elective abortion of a child which displayed characteristics of being a hermaphrodite. I'm sure that might run contrary to her views concerning future "trans-gender" folks.

The real elephant in the parlor though is that Roe v. Wade which granted women the "right to choose" was decided on the issue of viability of the fetus not the definition of whether a fetus was a human being (though this was either stated or inferred). Viability in the original argument also didn't extend into the third trimester of pregnancy either. I raise this point because the pro-abortionists have and continue to use the argument that if you define the fetus as a human being that somehow that's going to impede on either a women's "right to choose" or a complete roll-back of Roe v Wade. Since Roe v. Wade has been extended out to emcompass all elective abortion by these same advocates, I really don't see that they've anything much to worry about!

They are not the one's whining about it that I'm concerned about. It's how well the dems might be able to play this out as an issue.

As for National Security matters I'm sure that if the commitee asked any ,which I doubt they would because they know better--Condi can easily answer any with a disclaimer.

Wrong on both accounts--I play both.

I agree with you in regards to a feint, but I don't believe the dems have one in this case. If the administration is fearful of this perhaps they can find a way to work around it. If not so be it (that's called not ceding the higher ground without good reason).

Frankly, using poker parlance, I think it's a bluff.

Excellent