If it's a priest that's an action that, if discovered, gets you in a lot of trouble.

Do not defend Catwoman.

C'mon, Sophie, no one is asking you to take a stand here.

Are women paid in Canuck-bucks? It might explain some things.

Frankly, I'm almost surprised none of the writers tried to a Theban Sacred Band pastiche with some culture involved in the Dominion war.

They did have a Captain who was a god, but that's the most they'll likely ever deal with religion.

Being dynastic doesn't mean that you have to be heteronormative except in the broadest sense of how we mean the term. There's plenty of cultures where having the wife and kids has nothing to do with your sexuality even for straight people.

I'm more upset that it's another MIT graduate. Freakin' alumni network.

well, it's one where engineers and military officers run things so it all evens out.

As someone who works in academia, I am sorry that battle is being lost.

Actually I do agree that choosing not to interpret the first clause literally (or really at all) while reading the remainder as holy writ is a biased interpretation of the amendment (or at least a biased way of attempting to interpret it). I just think literal reading requires different tools than were being brought…

Nah, I think evil Iran is a fairly clear intersection of accidents of history, bad diplomacy, and easy rhetoric on both sides.

The relevance is that you provided a paraphrase of the text that strips too much content from the terms as used in the discourse surrounding the document. Per even the New Critics, it's not that the text provides no special meaning for security, it's that you're applying to narrow a meaning to word that once featured…

Ehhhh, given the reality of exposure of ancient Greece I think the baby killing by Amazons has a different quality to it than simple patriarchal slagging.

I can't really understand why the supposedly civilized first world bit makes any sense.

Up through Reagan they were at least willing to engage on restrictions or safety measures.

Sports and games?

I do sometimes feel like that amendments is just a pork barrel for 'Big Barracks.'

I would think it would be relevant that militias historically assume that people either already own their own weapons prior to service or will purchase them in order to be of service. So the presumption of the political discourse of the time would be that you need an armed populace to draw well regulated militias from.

And it is worth pointing out that many gun features that get effectively vetoed by the 'no gun control' lobby might actually get put onto guns if the threat of lawsuit could act as a balance against customer rage.