With the Andrea Yates decision interrupting our scheduled discussion, me, {idiot}, and my friend from the Religious Right, {RR}, had to jump right into this one.

idiot: You've heard the verdict: Not guilty by reason of insanity. What's your reaction?

RR: Let me try to keep this a PG interview. It was the single worst, most deplorable, unspeakably wrong decision I have ever seen.

idiot: Based on the evidence, if you were a juror, you would have found her guilty?

RR: They DID find her guilty, at the first trial! Then they somehow managed to get that thrown out and re-try her.

idiot: As a matter of law, when a witness lies, it is grounds for a mistrial.

RR: As a matter of law, she CONFESSED! Doesn't that mean anything?

idiot: The court ruled she was mentally unfit to make that confession.

RR: Yeah, she was insane. Insane enough to wait till her husband left for work. Insane enough to fill a bathtub full of water, take each one of her own children, and drown them by her own hand. Yeah, I'd say she was insane.

idiot: The jury believed she was insane when she did all that.

RR: Any lawyer can pay some quack Dr. to say whatever they want. What'd she have post-pardum depression? My wife was gloomy for a few days after giving birth, she didn't go around killing anybody.

idiot: Records showed, 1} A family history of mental illness. 2} Medical reports that she was treated for depression, bipolar disorder, psychosis, and schizophrenia. 3} She had several instances of hallucinations, and two suicide attempts. 4} She was taking, at different times, zoloft, zyprexa, haldol, ativan and risperdol.

RR: SO WHAT? The point is, SHE KILLED HER OWN KIDS! If the law says that's okay, there's something wrong with the law.

idiot: What about Dr. Saeed, Michael Woroniecki, and her husband?

RR: That's your answer? Blame everybody else? What exactly did they do that was worse than DROWNING YOUR OWN CHILDREN?

idiot: Dr. Saeed claimed Yates' files were all messed up, and that's why he didn't have her committed. Woroniecki was their Pastor-

RR: Wait a minute... Your saying she went to church?

idiot: She was very religious. She grew up a Catholic, then, when she got married, went to Woroniecki's church.

RR: So now you're gonna blame the church for what she did?

idiot: This pastor told her Catholics were going to hell. As a woman, she was a Daughter of Eve, who he called a witch. And, he told her that if she was going to hell, she would be responsible for her kids going to hell too.

RR: What? Where is this guy?

idiot: He fled to avoid prosecution.

RR: hhh...okay, what about her husband, what did he do?

idiot: It's what he DIDN'T do: He was instructed not to leave her alone, for any reason, just two days before it happened.

RR: So...well, maybe other people didn't help the situation, but still, those were her hands holding those kids under water. That doesn't get her off the hook. She should fry.

Commercial break.

Today me, {idiot}, and my friend from the Religious Right, {RR}, thought we'd discuss the debate over Evolution versus Creation; what should be taught in the classroom?

idiot: Obvious question, what do you think should be in our textbooks?

RR: Obvious answer, creation.

idiot: But since the theory of creation is religious, and we have separation of church and state, how would you justify that position?

RR: That's such a loaded question...

idiot: That's why I get paid the big bucks!

RR: Okay, first of all, creation isn't a theory, it's fact; recorded in Genesis, which was written long ago. It's not just religious, a majority of the scientific community accepts it. Also, "separation of church and state" is not even in the constitution.

idiot: Some would say the account of creation in Genesis is purely allegorical.

RR: "Some" would be wrong.

idiot: So you're saying all of creation happened in six days?

RR: No, that's what the Bible says.

idiot: Would you be willing to accept both evolution and creation to be taught side by side?

RR: When I was younger, I might have said yes; but now I would say no.

idiot: Wow, you don't even believe they should get "equal time"?

RR: No, because evolution isn't even a valid theory anymore. If "survival of the fittest" were true, and man is highest on the food chain, there would be no other species on the planet. Also, if life "mutates", as they call it, why haven't we seen a carp walk out from the ocean, and onto the beach?

idiot: So you're saying that our tax dollars should never pay for any textbook that has the word, "evolution" in it?

RR: Of course not, english teachers sometimes use science fiction books.

Commercial break.

Editor's note: In the last post, Thomas Jefferson was described as an atheist, when in fact, he was a deist. Sorry.

We had to get out of Haifa, hope peace can prevail somehow. Back in the U.S., {and glad we are!}, me,{idiot}, and my friend from the Religious Right,{RR} are starting a new discussion:

idiot: While we were concentrating on the Mid East, Bush vetoed the bill for stem cell research. Your reaction?

RR: That was probably the best news I've heard in quite a while.

idiot: I was upset..Think of all the promising medical miracles the president just said, "No" to.

RR: Promising medical miracles? Like cloning a goat? They say so far there have been no breakthroughs from stem cell research.

idiot: Well, first of all, the science is nothing at all like cloning. Secondly, it takes years of research before anything comes of it.

RR: That's got nothing to do with it...Abortion is wrong.

idiot: You mean, if a couple decides to donate an embryo in the interest of science, that's wrong?

RR: You don't understand, murder is murder, no matter the reason.

idiot: But these embryos aren't alive, are they?

RR: Life begins at conception.

idiot: I've heard that, but you know, the law defines the beginning of life as a baby's first breath. At least in New York state, where it isn't considered murder to kill a newborn unless the D.A. can prove the baby drew at least one breath. I got that from an episode of Law and Order.

RR: That's man's law, not God's.

idiot: I guess my problem with that is, America is supposed to be governed by man's law, not necessarily God's.

RR: So, you are one of Ann Coulter's Liberal Atheists, aren't you. You know you're the reason this country's going down the tubes.

idiot: Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, but, no: I don't consider myself a liberal, or an atheist. I think I'm a moderate, who believes in God, just not all of your thinking.

Commercial break.

I saw this blog post that used RR to signify religious right,{I think}, anyway, whoever you are, I'M STEALING IT! Basically 'cause I thought it was cool! Anyway, this is my first conversation:

idiot: How do you see an end to the hostilities in the mid-east?

RR: Israel has a right to defend herself.

idiot: Should the US intervene?

RR: It is our duty as Christians to support Israel, no matter what.

idiot: No matter what? What if they were the aggressor?

RR: But they weren't.

idiot: I'm not saying they were, this time. My question is should we always support Israel, no matter what they do?

RR: Of course. We are, after all, a Christian nation.

idiot: What exactly makes us a Christian nation?

RR: This country was founded on Christian principles, and the majority of it's citizens are Christians.

idiot: Wasn't this country founded on rebellion against England, so we could own our own land, keep our own money, and keep our own religious beliefs, whatever they happen to be?

RR: Okay, maybe. But our Constitution was written based on the Ten Commandments.

idiot: Wasn't it also based on the Magna Carta, as well as many other texts? I even heard Thomas Jefferson was an atheist.

RR: What does all this have to do with Israel?

idiot: You're right, sorry. So, how do we end this conflict, can we try to talk peace?

RR: We don't negotiate with terrorists.

idiot: So, you're saying the only Christian way to deal with violence is all out war?

RR: EXACTLY!

idiot: Whatever happened to turn the other cheek?

Commercial break.