Thoughts - I'm used to FIrefoxes being second class...

[jack]

I'm used to non-ie protals but see: http://www.repentamerica.com/.

"Christians, enter here.

Others, enter here."

I think they need a footnote to disambiguate people like catholics[1] and jesus...

[1] No, I have no idea why American "ultra"-Xian organisations think catholics aren't Xian, but there you go.

Comments

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

because they seem to 'worship' saints, which is tantamount to worshipping idols at a glance (especially when they make pictures and statues of the saints then pray to them).

True. That *does* make sense. But I generally find the bible at least ambiguous about matters which apparent christians disagree, so for people more like 40 than 4 it seems reckless to dismiss the whole faith. I haven't found anything official, but for instance http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/faq-cc.html#q15 claims catholics don't intend to be idoltrous.

The 'Are you good enough to go to Heaven?' article was actually not as bad as its name suggested; it did actually answer the question correctly

Oh yes. I hadn't actually *read* it yet, oops :)

Bush's Homosexual Agenda

I have no idea: is he supposed to be pro or con?

The tale of the baseball-bat abortion (some girl in Macomb County wanted an abortion but didn't want to tell her parents, so she got her boyfriend to hit her with a baseball bat until she miscarried, now he's on trial) makes me think despairingly of To Kill A Mockingbird, too; let's hope it has a happier ending.

Oh fuck. It is despairing.

It does sound like an extremely potent argument for legal and stigmaless abortions; I'm not sure if that's how they intended the link.

"This is the same kind of approach you would take to cases like football, or boxing, or sadomasochistic sex," Moran explained. "The striking behavior isn't assault because there's an expectation and consent." ...from the article linked. I'm interested that there, apparently, sadomasochism IS ok, as I've definitely heard of one case somewhere where one party was arrested.

[chess]

Under British law, one cannot be considered to have given consent to Actual Bodily Harm (which is loosely defined, but generally consists of 'heavy bruising', 'marks which persist for a week or more' or similar levels of injury) or Grevious Bodily Harm (or 'wounding', but that's oddly defined and generally strange legally) on the grounds of sadomasochism; you can give consent to 'battery', which is any form of physical contact which does not constitute ABH. There is a famous case where a bunch of gay men were convicted of ABH and GBH for consensual acts performed on each other. ('Assault' doesn't actually contain any element of physical contact at all - it's the crime of putting someone in *fear* of violence, and you can also consent to that trivially.)

I think the American legal system has different definitions of all of these terms, and don't know its stance on how much harm can be explained as sadomasochism.