Jd are you for real?

Well, I suppose it's no surprise that I agree with both what Sorkin and you are saying up above there.

But the problem with this debate is that all of the people who agree with you and I are arguing from a point of view that the other side believes they know is wrong without any actual proof or reasoning, and without any need for actual support beyond whatever they've previously decided is true. What they believe is what is true. Things they don't believe are not true or right. Evidence has no bearing.

In fact, they are proud that they have no proof that they are right -- it's generally a virtue for a religious person to believe something with no way of verifying if it's actually true.

That sort of thinking is anathema to me, at least.

The only possible reasoning you can do with people who think this way is to make them doubt what they believe in using actual logic and evidence. For most people, actually showing or illustrating in very physical terms that what they believe and what is actually the case are at odds can have a powerful impact. On the other hand, it's an uneven impact. They may change their mind about that one thing you've demonstrated, but they don't likewise make the logical leap that it brings the rest of the things they believe into equal uncertainty because in their minds the various things aren't true or not because of cause and effect. X doesn't lead to Y, Belief leads to X, Y, and Z, so knocking X out still leaves Y and Z supported by belief, just as they were to begin with.

The thing I find most problematic with highly religious people is the righteousness. I am perfectly willing to live and let live, and to be tolerant and supportive of them, even though I violently disagree with them. But they are not willing to extend that same courtesy to me. They believe they know better, and they believe that justifies them interfering in my life.

That is maddening.

(Sorry, had to get that off my chest...And sorry to you too, Tammy. As always, I'm not trying to pick on any particular person. I'm just sort of ranting in general.)

First, I loved this West Wing scene. It was one was the best. I am only hoping that the show stays strong now that Sorkin is not writing it.

Second, I live by the Golden Rule, too. However some of my religious friends do not think that I can possible be a ‘good’ person with out God. However, this does not stop them from being my fiends.

J.d., I cannot answer your question. I cannot answer how people can base their entire belief system on half of a book.

Can you really pick which commandments to live by?
- One friend has had multiple affairs, but she still thinks that God will forgive her. She does not like when I ask if her husband will. Is it my place to tell him that she continue to sleep around?
- Others say abortion is murder. However one friend had an abortion when she found out her baby had MS. (I think it was MS, it may have been DS.)

"The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion. It is often regarded as the most concise and general principle of ethics. It is a condensation in one principle of all longer lists of ordinances such as the Decalogue."

Ha. Now don't that sound like something dana would say? Well I found that on the internet.Here is what amazes me. Some people hang their shirts on the golden rule; do unto others as you would have others do to you.(Matt&Luke) The Golden Rule is their life creed.

This one teaching of Jesus is held as a banner making the one practicing it feel superior to the one he percieves is not practicing it. One says, "I live by the Golden Rule", but in their arrogance they forget that Jesus also taught many other things that they don't live by. What about this verse, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by me." Or this one, "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man but the end thereof is the way of death." Or this one. "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."

There's no great virtue to be found in keeping the Golden Rule. Sure it's a wonderful creed to live by but it is not a creed one can die by.

Spouting the Golden Rule makes one seem so virtous, but alas, my friends there is a reckoning day when one must not only answer for how he lived his life but for what he did with Jesus? What have you done with Jesus? Have you ever given that serious thought.

And Dana I believe a lot of your frusteration with those of us who don't put a lot of stock in logic is simply that you don't understand faith. To us, it's simple. The Bible says that even a child can understand the scripture. These religious people you refer to don't need logic. All they need to know is that God said it!

We have a saying amongst us, (we religious people) it goes like this:
God said it.
I believe it.
And that settles it.

God said it.
And even if I don't believe it,
That settles it.

You see, we fundamental Christians are not the ones running around trying to figure out if there's a God. You don't find us wondering what that mystic pull is that we feel deep inside. We don't turn to crystal balls and incense and tarot cards. We don't go around wondering if maybe theres something we're missing out on in life. We don't stare into the heavens and read our future through astronomy.

Why? Because we personally know the One who hung the stars in place. We know heaven is in our future. We have a deep hidden peace in our hearts that the world knows nothing about. Our lives are lived by faith and not by sight. We don't have to question our very existence!

God said it and we believe it!That settles it!

(Sorry, had to get that off my chest...And sorry to you too, Dana. As always, I'm not trying to pick on any particular person. I'm just sort of ranting in general.)

I remember when my parents rented me Watership Down (the animated movie) when I was a young child.... thinking that it was a nice movie about rabbits...until we were all watching it and they were ripping each other to shreds.
Needless to say my parents didn't have a lot of time to read back then.

I don't remember much about the movie - I must have blocked it from my memory as a child to avoid the nightmares.....

Okay, Tammy, that's just too big a target to pass up (as I suspect you intended =) )

This one teaching of Jesus is held as a banner making the one practicing it feel superior to the one he percieves is not practicing it. One says, "I live by the Golden Rule", but in their arrogance they forget that Jesus also taught many other things that they don't live by.

We aren't forgetting that Jesus taught many other things that we don't live by.

We don't care one way or the other what Jesus taught. It's just that that one thing that Jesus taught, and the conclusions we had already arrived at, happen to match up.

In my own experience, non-religious people who point out that Jesus taught the Golden Rule are not trying to justify themselves as following Jesus, but are rather trying to point out something to the religious folks about their own religion.

Tammy, selling your child into slavery is evil and wrong. Most importantly, it's against the Golden Rule. So, God has said two things which are mutually incompatible.

Which one did he really mean?

And Dana I believe a lot of your frusteration with those of us who don't put a lot of stock in logic is simply that you don't understand faith. To us, it's simple. The Bible says that even a child can understand the scripture. These religious people you refer to don't need logic. All they need to know is that God said it!

Actually, Tammy, I understand that perfectly. I even said as much up above, in my earlier post. On the contrary, I think one of my problems is that I understand religious people too well.

Logic isn't perfect, but it's quite useful in a wide variety of situations. Talking to people who do not understand what it's good for, however, is not one of those situations.

It's not that religious people are incapable of understanding logic, it's that they have no willingness to. Why should they? It's not the word of God. They don't need to know anything beyond the Bible.

Well, okay. But when you go to the doctor, you're benefiting from several thousand years of science, science that the Christian religion fought tooth and nail against, science that (for the most part) logical people slowly accumulated, one fact after another, over a long span of time. Same with driving your car, or using air conditioning, or a refridgerator, or any one of a million things. That's what logic is good for.

A thousand years ago, the most pressing issue in science was probably curing the Bubonic plague.

A thousand years ago, the most pressing issue in religion was obeying your church, converting the heathens that don't believe what you believe (which included not a small number of scientists of the time), and telling people that the Plague was because God was punishing them, but that if you prayed and lived a godly life, you'd be safe.

Today, we can cure the bubonic plague and, generally, prevent it from starting in the first place. One of the more pressing issues for science is how to cure the modern day equivalent of the Plague, AIDS.

Today, the most pressing issues in religion are obeying your church, converting the heathens that don't believe what you believe (which includes not a small number of scientists), and telling people that AIDS was created by God as a means of punishing us, but that if we pray and live a godly life, we'll be safe.

One of these things indicates progress, civilization, and learning from the lessons of history. The other does not.

I don't think I can put it in any clearer terms than that.

Aren't I clever? And evil? While I'm sitting here scanning photographs of Crater Lake (and trying to cope with Nemo's newfound obsession with computer screens—oh the cursor moved again!), I've got you all roiled up again.

Actually, Dana, you make an excellent observation at the end of your last comment. Very telling. One thousand years from now, the most pressing issues of religion wille remain the same, except that it'll be telling people that the evil Lectroids from Planet Ten were sent by God to punish us... :)

And, before I forget: one of my main points was how evil Dr. Laura is. Aren't any of you familiar with her? She's awful. She doesn't listen to her callers (I've never heard her allow a caller to finish a statement of the problem without interruption), and the "advice" she gives is utter bullshit by any measure.

Well, [i]duuuh[/i] "Dr." Laura is evil. I just thought that went without saying, like Rush Limbaugh is a doofus. Everybody just sort of knows that, right? =)

I haven't listened to Dr. Laura for years but bigots and fanatics of any religion make my skin crawl. And I've seen few religions that don't have them. But to me that doesn't make Christianity wrong. Still, I'm aware of the problems with taking the Bible too literally, and I've noticed that various Christian persuasions seem to have their own pet scriptures that they feel are most important to apply in the lives of their membership. Generally, they attract like-minded people who come to make up the fellowship. Those who aren't like-minded generally drop away through negative peer pressure. This doesn't mean Christian fellowships are harmful, although I believe that such a thing as spiritual abuse does exist. However, when individuals find a family-like atmosphere with other church members who share similar beliefs, it's a beautiful thing.

For myself, I am a Christian who doesn't attend the church I am a member of for several reasons, one of which is because of health concerns (including the fact that the pews don't like my back). I tried attending another church one Sunday hoping that the seats were more comfortable and they were padded and had good back support but in general the church wasn't my cup of tea. It isn't that I don't believe that the people at either church aren't Christians, though. I believe in a universal body of Christ, and it is broad and over-arching and the nitpicky differences between the various churches don't mean a lot to me. I guess you could say I'm very liberal.

I also believe strongly in the usefulness of science and medicine, and have benefited a great deal personally in my life from all sorts of discoveries in both areas. I believe in logic as well as faith and I don't think that they are necessarily mutually exclusive. I do find that blind faith can be very frustrating to deal with in another person. I have a Mormon friend online who I knew years ago when Steve and the kids and I were still Mormons, and we have just developed an online friendship over the last couple of years. She is continually sending me hoaxes and she never questions them. After I check them out and let her know what the hoax sites say, she will just say that she's computer illiterate and laugh it off with a comment like "brain cramp", even though I've told her how to look the articles up on Google. If I pass something she sends me along without checking it out, I almost always find out quite quickly that once again we've both been taken in. I'm quite positive that the reason she doesn't question is because she trusts the people who are sending them to her so much (and most likely the senders are Mormon) that she absolutely will not consider questioning. As a Mormon she's been taught not to question. Period. As a Mormon for 36 years, I was taught not to question. I have learned to question through hard lessons and I value that now.

So I see truth in elements of what many of you have to say. I believe you all are trying to live ethical lives. To me, that says a lot.

So if:
God said it.
I believe it.
And that settles it.
Then 'selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.' Is acceptable?

"I do find that blind faith can be very frustrating to deal with in another person." I tread softly here because the writer of the above statement is none other than my dear aunt. But I want to point out that there is really no such thing as blind faith. Once something is seen it is no longer faith. All faith is blind. The moment we change from blind faith to a seeing faith we no longer have faith but sight.

And now to Dana:
"Today, the most pressing issues in religion are obeying your church, converting the heathens that don't believe what you believe (which includes not a small number of scientists), and telling people that AIDS was created by God as a means of punishing us, but that if we pray and live a godly life, we'll be safe."

You have this wrong my friend. Your paragraph should read like this;

"Today the most pressing issues in religion are obeying the Word of God, converting the heathens and bringing them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ (which includes not a small number of scientists)and telling people that God is a God of Love, not willing that any should perish, and if you pray and ask Jesus to save you, you shall be saved."

Our most pressing issue has nothing to do with Aids!

Again Dana speaks:
"Tammy, selling your child into slavery is evil and wrong. Most importantly, it's against the Golden Rule. So, God has said two things which are mutually incompatible."

I do not have a clue what you are referring to. I assume the selling of children into slavery must have some reference to the Old Testament. Nowhere in the New Testament were we told to sell our kids into slavery. Along with the birth and death and ultimately the resurection of Jesus came a much gentler law; that being the law of grace.

Again Dana says;
"Logic isn't perfect, but it's quite useful in a wide variety of situations. Talking to people who do not understand what it's good for, however, is not one of those situations."

Of course we as Christians understand there is a need for logic. We are just saying that faith defies logic. Our God defies logic! The Bible directly states that God has hidden the deep meaning of the Scriptures from the wise and has revealed them unto babes. You are throwing the word logic around like it's sacred. It's splattering all over the debate like so much useless paint thrown from the broad brush that you have painted with.

We are not dumb. In fact we are quite discerning in the fact that we know when logic is useful versus when it should just stay in the can!

I don't think I can put it in any clearer terms than that.

Ah Tiffany as I said, "an Old Testament scripture pulled out of context." Very few people know that Scripture off the top of their heads. May I suggest that you google searched it?

Umm, in my sister's defense, I think she got that scripture quote from the West Wing scene transcribed above. Check it out.

Sue-- I enjoyed reading your post today. Thanks for sharing those thoughts.

yeh I had skimmed that before. I was actually wondering how Dana pulled it ou of the blue. I figured it must have been that massive IQ of his at work again. :)

yeh I had skimmed that before. I was actually wondering how Dana pulled it out of the blue. I figured it must have been that massive IQ of his at work again. :)

Thanks, Kris. It means a lot to me that you would say that.

Tammy, you have left me curious to know what you would term my Mormon friend's state of mind in blindly passing along hoaxes and refusing to think for herself, even to the point of simply typing in a few words on Google to get the facts. I appreciate your concern for my feelings, however, even if we may have to agree to disagree on this point.

I would call her naive, simple, overly trusting, blissfully unaware, a taco short of a combination plate? :) No actually, Sue I agree with you that she is lacking in the area of discernment but I'm not entirely convinced that it's because she was spoon fed Mormonism all her life and taught to blindly obey. Some people are just kind of stupid. And she may be one of them. :)

Does anyone ever get tired of reading the same argument over and over and over and over?

Just wondering.

J.D. are you done looking at your Crater Lake pictures? Let's see um!

Denise,

If you think rereading the same argument over and over, try having the same argument over and over. =)

tammy:

i think it's hysterical how totally worked up and committed to your faith you are when it's completely obvious to all but the most feeble-minded that you've chosen the wrong god!

yup, you've been worshipping INCORRECTLY all these years. and it's even more funny, actually sad in some small way that all your christian friends and family and ancestors have lived and died/will die pointless lives (again in pursuit of the wrong god!)...

how do i know this? because christians are WRONG. buzzz. ennnnhhhhh. sorry. buddhists are right. your god is a false god. i've got plenty of info to back me up, but it's late and i'm fried at the moment, so just take my word for it and the words of a lot of smarter individuals than you. have faith.

so. you lose. however, you MAY still work your way out of this spiritual crevasse in time to rescue your up-to-now wasted life. but you'll have to act quick. get a copy of the dhammapada and start reading. fast!

ps: i hope you realise i'm saying this for your own good. i know the anguish that can come from attachment, especially to a shaky world-view such as yours. i'm just trying to save you...

Ok – Mart’s statement is the exact reason I am agnostic. Who can believe in any God that would condemn people for worshiping the wrong God? God is a loving and forgiving being, and it is man that created religion, hence 'worshipping the wrong God'.

Regardless of how you choose to worship - if you believe in ONE God, isn't it safe to assume that everyone worships the same God, just in different ways? By stating people are going to hell because they don't believe in the 'right' God, or that they worship the wrong God, you are doing nothing but proving religion is a man-made system designed to make people feel good about themselves or in some cases make people feel that they are better than others who don't belong to their faith.

I cannot comprehend a God that would condemn a good person/soul because of the way s/he worships.

I've known my Mormon friend a long time and I wouldn't say she's stupid. In fact, her and her husband's case illustrates a theory Steve had about people who convert to Mormonism, which they did. I think this theory may apply to members of other religions as well. Steve felt that people who converted to Mormonism were having some psychological need met, especially as Mormon missionaries and church members were enouraged to look for individuals who had suffered some kind of loss (a child, a spouse, a marriage) as they were often susceptible to the Mormon gospel with its beliefs such as the eternal nature of the family and marriage. The friend I mentioned and her husband are a good example of that. They were living on Guam and he was in the armed services serving as an air traffic controller. He was also an alcoholic. One day some brass were there and he was bringing in some jets and because he was under the influence, he had them on a coordinate that would have plowed them into the ground if someone else hadn't caught the error. That was truly a traumatic experience for him. From what they've said, about that time he heard about the Mormon gospel and felt like it was the answer for them, with it's proscription against drinking. I should note that he still attends AA meetings so apparently Mormonism in and of itself isn't enough, but this certainly hits me as a case of where a psychological need has been met. In their life now, he has been diagnosed as having Alzheimers, and again I feel the Mormon church is meeting the wife's psychological needs and helping her to cope. Maybe she can't afford to think for herself because her whole life would unravel and her coping mechanism would be gone if she started questioning her beliefs. I have a great deal of compassion for her.

There has also been an incident with my mother where I saw a mental process much like this in operation. She was visiting here and we were at Clackamas Town Center and I got a latte. I had drunk coffee when I was with her a few days before while I was at the coast but she hadn't noticed. She knew what that latte cup was, though. She didn't say anything about it, just started talking pointedly about Brigham Young, although I can't remember exactly what she was saying. Apparently what she said gave me the perfect segway for me to make a comment about how in reading a family history book I had, I had noticed that my great-grandfather had married his second and third polygamist wives in Mexico after the Mormon church claimed to have officially ended the practice. She kind of smiled and said, that's why they did it. I replied that the Mormon church was being dishonest, though, in claiming that polygamy had ended earlier. (One of the officiators to one of the marriages later became president of the Mormon church, so there can be no question about it being officially sanctioned.) She didn't say anything right away, and I thought it seemed like she was giving what I had said a lot of thought. As we were leaving the mall, she said that she could never have been one of Joseph Smith's wives. But later on, she started talking about her Mormon friends in the church in Idaho, and it was like her mind snapped shut and she refused to entertain any doubts. I figured she couldn't stand to lose her entire social support group and the coping mechanism her religion provided for her. I can't complain too much because the Mormon church there has people who watch out for her and I don't worry about her as much as I would otherwise. Still, it's frustrating when she feels sorrow for me because she believes I'm going to the Mormon version of hell and that I won't be with the rest of the family in eternity. She's an intelligent person -- there are many intelligent people in the Mormon church -- but she can't get past what she was taught all her life.

I don't want to argue with you about this, Tammy, because I respect your right to your beliefs and care about you as a person, but once again, it is very frustrating to deal with. Whether called blind faith or something else, it produces a lot of unnecessary sorrow for my mother and for me as well as in the other situation frustration in dealing with my Mormon friend.

I've pretty well decided that while organized religion is out of the question for me, I'm satisfied to apply the beliefs shared by many religions once they're stripped of their worldly trappings (e.g. how and when one must pray, whether you're going to hell if you're not baptised as an adult but were as a baby, the proper way to slaughter an animal ) and any peculiar definitions of what/who/how god is exactly.

I cannot in good conscience call myself part of any organized religion or religious body. Too many awful things are perpetrated "in the name of" religion or as if sanctioned by divine power. I cannot abide organized religion that holds I, as a woman and daughter of Eve, am responsible for humanity's downfall and expulsion from Paradise. I cannot abide organized religion that teaches I must be held subserviant because of my gender. I cannot abide organized religion that practices discrimination against girls (forbidding them educations, performing cruel clitorectomy and other genital mutilations, beatings and stonings for infractions of ancient prohibitions that have no place in a civilized world).

There's plenty in common among the world's religions, and I figure the kernel of wisdom from those common beliefs is about as close to good and right as we're going to get. No murdering? Got it. Coveting leads to misery? Right! Rape, incest, witch-hunts against your neighbor, all bad. Ok! Lying, stealing, gossiping, bad, bad, bad. No problem. Compassion good, charity good, forgiveness good. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus all claim to hold to these beliefs. The rest of it is all just where the various prophets, apostles, transcribers and clergyfolk went off on their own culturally-relevant tangents. Talking bushes, magic glasses, floods and rainbows, bears mauling children in the name of god, it's all just distraction from the bottom line of living a good, kind, peaceful life.

The West Wing episode that blasted Dr. Laura was little more than an attack ad. The rant by "President Bartlet" was full of venom and hyperbole.

The character is portrayed as a very prominently devout Catholic so his rant seemed to by hypocritical; the Church teaches that Scripture opposes same gender sexual acts as immoral always. The orthodoxies of Judaism and Protestantism pretty much arrives at the same conclusion. And they all teach that all of Scripture is the inviolate word of God and that all of it is to be followed by believers. Within each the consistency is well-scrutinize, however, inter-faith contradictions persist (of course).

The scriptwriter, Aaron Sorkin, has admitted to the gay publication, The Advocate, that his rant scene's list of ordinances from Mosaic Law was just an excuse to blast Dr. Laura. Unfortunately the means used amounted to a rather ill-informed attack on the moral relevancy of the Bible. Disagree with people and disagree with their religious beliefs, but why shoutdown someone with a rant that gets most of the references very, very wrong? Seems self-defeating to me because it destroys the creditibility of everyone involved -- both sides get smeared.

Anyway, here's a tongue-in-cheek replay of the scene, but with the Dr. Laura character actually speaking up with a few answers to the rhetorical questions of the show's President Bartlet. If you watch The West Wing you might get some of the show-related jokes and puns in the added responses from the Dr. Laura character.

This replay appeared in a discussion of The West Wing (The Midterms) at the following website: www.televisionwithoutpity.com

A literal account of the Bartlet v. Dr. Laura scene:

BARTLET: Forgive me, Dr. Laura, are you an M.D.?

DR LAURA: No sir, I'm not a medical doctor.

My credentials? Well, I have a B.S. in Biology Sciences, State University. An M.S. and Ph.D in Physiology and an M. Philosophy from Colombia. Post-doctoral certification in marriage, family, and child counseling, University of Southern California. Member of the graduate psychology faculty, Pepperdine University. And I've been in private practice, psychotherapy, for more than twelve years.

And I play theological Scrabble at the master level in Hebrew, Latin, and Geek.

BARTLET: Good. I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.

DR LAURA: As you may know, sir, my viewpoint on biblical matters is drawn from the religious tradition of orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Did I mention that I am immune to the #2 pencil anomaly?

BARTLET: I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another?

DR LAURA: Mr. President, the Bible doesn't commend slavery. And there is no requirement that you sell your daughter. You could give it a try but you'd risk the wrath of the TWoP Anti-Female Sexism thread. With a second language and general cleanliness, Zoey is good for a slave's wage, err, I mean, minimum wage -- plus tips -- at La Rosa Puzzante.

BARTLET: My Chief of Staff, LeoO McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

DR LAURA: Rest assured that you, sir, are not morally obligated to execute Mr. McGarry, however, if you decide to take him to the proper authorities please be sure to bring three witnesses, both parties, and elders. But a word of preventative advice: give your COS a break and let him enjoy conjugal "barbeques" on the Sabbath before it's too late for his marriage.

As you know, Mr. President, you don't have the authority to try capital cases. This country has a civil judiciary branch of government. No matter. While "executive insomnia" probably doesn't mean much to you just now, [SPOILER] by Season Four Mr. McGarry's hardwork will pay off and you'll get to put someone to death by calling your own enforcement officers [/SPOILER]. Excuse the self-censorship, sir, that was a national security spoiler.

BARTLET: Here's one that's really important, because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

DR LAURA: Even if the footballs were made of pigskin, they aren't food. But if you were to swallow a football, it still wouldn't make you unclean. Although I think it might be a bit tough to pass (pun intended). Besides, the big leagues play with footballs made of cowhide and cows are kosher. Same goes for vynil. Both are as innocuous as your pigskin wallet. So playing football is not considered a sin, unlike the other thing.

There's an old rabbinic statement that might help with your implied complaint:
A person shouldn't say, "I really can't stand pork." It's better to say, "I would really, really, really like to indulge in some. But my Father in heaven has declared it to be forbidden."

BARTLET: Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

DR LAURA: Well, sir, your brother can thank God that Leviticus 19:19 has never provided for that sort of punishment for gardeners. On the other hand, if John doesn't grow his own weed, he might want to go to Canada to get legally stoned.

As for your mom's fashion sense, the Bible does provide for a proportional response. If a sanction was deserved, the hip Fashion Court could set aflame the First Mom's wardrobe high atop the altar of modernity. Or your Mom could have a postmodern garage sale.

Sometimes you just have to be cruel to be kind. [Sotto voce] Let's hope she doesn't have a special relationship with her shoes. [/Sotto voce]

BARTLET: One last thing. While you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tightass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits.

DR LAURA: [Blink] With all due respect, Mr. President, you are one of the most prominent Catholics in this country. Why do you pose as a petty legalist? Picking and choosing from scripture out of context, twisting the facts, giving yourself permission to rudely take a run at someone whose religious views differ from your own? As a good host, you won't mind me reminding you, sir, that, in our country and in this White House, the President doesn't get to replay the Inquisition.

Now, while you stand there in your wrongness, and I sit here on my size nine derriere, please accept this, the last crab puff in the room. It's "New England" crab and I've saved it just for you. Sit. Enjoy.

[With a big tip of the hat to this website and to this website and this website]