I have never claimed to be Jewish, but my first name is not uncommon. Apparently in lockstep with your worldview generally, your entire rant, name-calling and all, is based on bogus assumptions.

Bridget: Are you serious? God is blessing the US because we support Israel? Can you actually bring evidence to support that claim? I'd be just as inclined to believe that Santa is giving America more presents than anyone else because David S is offering his Lunchable Snacks as a burnt offering to Sponge-Bob.

I submit that Bridget and David are representative a larger readership which places little value on rational skepticism and which enable Mike Adam's biased literary bumbling to continue to sell.

I'll accept that were it not for people like you who cling to invented doctrines like the three Desert Faiths, we very likely would not be in the war we are in and would certainly not have witnessed the events of September 11, 2001.

If you had any real ideas worth debating, then your post might be considered intimidating. As it is, you sound more or less like the Borg.

"Well, now he's the god who bleeds, and once you're the god who bleeds, it's hard to get the divinity back in the tube, as it were."

Who says it's hard? Jesus is obviously well-secured in his test-tube. Precedent is set.

Since when does one oddball case constitute a meaningful statistic? If he were heterosexually-married, does it make sense to extrapolate that heterosexual couples are a danger to children?

Don't be daft.

"Why should we either have to spend money or give it away to charity?"

Because, to a high degree, it is a powerful privilege simply to be born an American. That any wealthy, comfortable, or middle-class American has the "option" to leverage otherwise unused wealth in any form should carry with it a proportional sense of individual responsibility to ensure that others are afforded the same opportunity to exercise that "option".

Socking away wealth out of reach of any investment above and beyond your own personal necessities in order to "make a political statement" is disgusting for one thing, and simply harmful in general. It's the fat baby wailing into a crowded room full of people trying to hear themselves think through...

Not spending, in general, isn't a form of protest, it's just a decision to do without all of the luxuries you might, through your work, be able to (and otherwise would) purchase; luxuries most people in the world can only dream of. If you have enough money to "not spend" in protest, then you merely illustrate that you actually need much less money than you earn.

To me, that sounds like a prime reason to give a LARGE portion of that unused wealth to charity. Or, rather, you should be mandated to do exactly that through higher taxes...a charitable donation to Uncle Sam to help your fellow man. I guarantee that's the only political capital you will earn through your money-not-spent, at least from a grass-roots voter-level. ...

A basic understanding of the feminist movement is required study at most Universities these days, but even the most cursory knowledge should be enough to reveal this proclaimed satire as simply dumb. It's unworthy of a college student, let alone a tenured professor.

The original article was ill-conceived...this update merely adds the descriptor, "sophomoric" to the review.

Because I find homophobia, backed by Bible verses as though they have moral weight, quite obscene.

Here you are, Cambermeister:

Belgium

Netherlands

Norway

Spain

All have more or less full-fledged marriage of same sex couples. Dozens of other countries have legal provisions to the effect of civil unions.