Susan - I did read your post, but my response was directed more toward Troll's than yours. My point was that in my opinion the original joke is political satire, not religious humor. I base this on the analysis (mine, of course) that it is not lampooning Ashcroft for reading or believing the Bible as much as it is pointing out what happens when literal interpretation of sacred text is applied to public policy.

I know, Alex, that we have gone over this ground before. But bear with me, because I think there are some important distinctions that need to be made. And since the one real advantage that the human mind has over computers is the ability to make the subtlest of distinctions, I think we should exercise that ability from time to time

Racist jokes are never acceptable and they're never funny; they are mean spirited. Maybe that's some kind of criteria to use in judging these things: is the intent of the "humor" mean spirited? I have laughed at a lot of macabre, dark jokes - Princess Diana jokes, Martha Stewart jokes, airplane crash jokes; jokes that I would not have found funny if I knew the people involved. Later, when thinking about "the joke" and realizing that it was mean spirited, I resolved not to repeat it or pass it along.

As I said before, humor is an attempt to disarm something that we consider dangerous or hurtful; when you can laugh at something it loses some of its power over you. Maybe it would be better to start a thread by simply saying that application of scripture to public policy leads to certain untenable positions. But that wouldn't be anywhere near as clever or interesting to the reader. Or funny. But of course, that's just my opinion.

By the way: Mr. McCarthy - excellent.

Now, as Alex has suggested, I'm off this subject. But there will be others, I'm sure.

Have a great day, all.
Bart