Susan: Thank you for your thoughts as well.

I would echo Barts thoughts: The original post was a bit of a commentary on Levitican law -- not necessarily on the other parts of the Bible, some of which I can concur with wholle-heartedly -- which is one of the parts of the Bible most akin to secular laws WRT the specificity and the temporal punishments prescribed. It is the part that is most prone to use (or is it abuse?) by those that would seek the name and authority of someone whom they are manifestly not, in making rules and passing laws that _others_ should abide by. There are even those (the Christian Reconstructinists) that would argue for the wholesale incorporation of Levitican law (and the rest of Biblical "jurispridence") into contemporary secular law, and it turns out that Ashcroft is not wholly unknown to this bunch (although I make no claim that he actually is an adherent of this). However, I suspect he has some sympathy for some of their aims (or he's using such a rationale to support other more covert motives).

To make fun of, or even attack, the relevance of this Levitican law in today's society is not -- in my mind -- an attack on religion. It's an attack on the application of a somewhat detached satellite of religious beliefs to not only the adherents, but also to our secular world.

Enough said by me on that subject; if you want more, there are perhaps more appropriate fora than here for that.

My e-mail, should anyone feel compelled to comment or wish to discuss further, is "zuch@ix.netcom.com" (as a Deja search would readily tell you as well).

BTW, WYSIWYG might be an appropriate appellation for Susan. It's an acronym for "What You See Is What You Get". ANd she does seem pretty straight-forward.

Cheers,

-- Arne Langsetmo

P.S. Do I need a MudCat nick to be proper? Perhaps "The insufferable pedant". . . .