Palin and her church scares me.

"It's not unreasonable to assume that a Christian -- even an extreme evangelical Christian -- might actually lead in a more righteous and moral manner than someone who has no basis in faith ."

Oh, but it is unreasonable to make such an assumption. 

Unless by that statement you mean to say that a christian is more likely to lead in manner consistent with christian moral laws and principles than an atheist.

On matters where a lot of atheists, agnostics and more secularized religious people consider the truly moral position to be opposed to those religious laws,  wouldn't, for instance, an extreme evangelical christian be less likely to lead in a moral manner? (as construed by the aforementioned group) 

Gay rights would be such an issue, and we've gone over others time and time again in other threads.

Morality is not exclusive to any religion, or even exclusive to religion itself. The only thing we can assume or presume is that a person will seek to act in accordance with his own moral standards, not just as he claims them to be but as he has shown them to be.

In order to assume that a christian will lead in a more moral way, you will have to agree that those laws he embraces that are particular to his faith (and not based on secular concerns or considerations) are just. If you share his faith, that might be easy.

For those who do not share his faith on those issues, what you see as a guarantee of morality might be seen as a likewise guarantee of immorality.

Dave Pruitt wrote: Just the fact that we haven't got him yet isn't an effective argument that we don't want him either.

Really.  Seven years after the most terrible attack on American soil in modern times if not arguably ever and we haven't done a thing to get the man who we know is responsible, yet it's cool to say that "we haven't got him yet isn't an effective argument that we don't want him".  Seriously?  The might of the entire United States of America and we can't get a single man even if, as you say, we may know exactly where this bastard is?  What else does it say but that the Bush Administration didn't give two shits about OBL or, at the very least, didn't rank him as high a priority as taking their vengeance out on Iraq for past indiscretions?

We didn't know where he was, Christopher.

But you may be on to something - it took us a few years to catch Eric Rudolph...

oh, pardon - let me translate that - "Source?  You're better than that.  I pity you"

Now, on to Dave and Matt's exchange (for which, sadly, I have some blame) - I think there's a misunderstanding here - maybe - I don't think Dave is being naive or duplicitious -  I think it's more a case of Dave taking the goverenment (or current administration) at their word and assuming that they will do the right thing.  Am I wrong on that assumption, Dave?

Because Dave's not suggesting any wrong-doing, just that they haven't caught him and there must be a reason.  Whereas I, who does not trust the government, (most cabinets, but specifically the current administration) and assumes it's usually not looking after the best interests of the citizenry, do not give it the benefit of doubt, and do easily make that leap to assume that we don't have him because we're not interested.

Matt has a good point - and I hope those who disagree with the side of the issue that Matt and I are on understand our point - I can only assume that we all share this belief:  That OBL organized an attack on American soil that took the lives of 3,000+ Americans and for this, he should be persued and caught, and brought to a swift trail and punnished for his actions.  I think we're all in agreement.   Thus - it is galling to me personally, that he is still walking around while Bush is saying he's lost interest, and reports are slipping out (like the one I liked to earlier among others) that we do, in fact, know where he is.  If you give the government the benefit of the doubt, you assume there's a reason for all this, but if, like me, you do not feel they have earned that respect, you want to know why he's free, why our leader isn't interested, and why we know where he is. 

David F mentioned a good reason - that Musharrif could not give him up without risking assassanation.  Well, ok.  See, that's an answer I can work with.  But even then.... shouldn't an intellegence agency be working on that then?

I know it's hard for the CIA to take their jobs seriously when, at any time, they could be exposed for petty reasons by the administration, but still... what are we paying them for? 

Finally - Dave suggests that I presented the Bush quotes out of context - presumably framed in a way to make Bush look wrong, or to change the meaning of his intentions.  I have to admit - as far as I know - that's the beginning and end of the answers to the question - point of fact, I saw one of them being asked to him on TV - he was asked, he answered.  But if I am wronging sirrah Bush, I request, as they say, souces.  Tell me what his real meanings were behind his words, please.

In closing, one notes that I added, as much as possible, qualifiers to my assumptions - I note that, in fact, I am not reading minds or making judgements, I am just putting together a flow based on words presented, and by using the word "assumptions", I am asking for clarifications when I miss-assumed in any instance.

Well I guess if Obama wins the election we can expect to hear about the death or capture of Bin Laden the day after the inauguration, right? Since we know where he is all Obama has to do is give the order and it's done.

Source?  I expect better of you.  I pity you.

We might.  Or Obama will have to enter new negotiations with the new government of Pakistan to get OBL.  And if he's not captured or killed in a reasonable time, I expect that we'll hear an answer from Obama that's more substantial than Bush's sickening not interested.

Seems like America can turn on the outrage over OJ Simpson, but OBL is sunning himself in Pakistan, the CIA claims to know where he is, Bush is saying *who cares?* and where's the outrage?

I don't know what you guys are doing when you're not posting (or when you are, for that matter) - maybe you're all outraged and screaming yourselves hoarse over it.  One can only read words typed, and not understand the emotions or intentions behind them - you're forced to make your own assumptions about the person posting them - and I can promise you that most people here are reading me wrong, so I get that it happens, but from my point of view, there's too much casual dismissal of our failure to capture the man behind 9/11.  Meant or not, it's reading as if you're supporting Bush's *So what?* attitude.

I really do expect better of Americans.

Finally - it's both funny, and sickeningly condecending when the talking point is repeated of "it's naive to think we can waltz into Pakistan"

Yet it WASN'T naive to waltz into Iraq?  I've already covered the Nuke angle; we've got more of them and so does India, and India's are all aimed at Pakistan, so... I can't see a rational person fearing that scenario.  Nor should we be waltzing into Pakistan, period.  Or anywhere on earth - we should be in negotiations with the government for cooperation. 

Ah HA!  Got you on that one - I didn't put it in quotes, but italicized it - it's my summation of Bush's words, not an actual quote.

Knowing you and your posting style, I knew you'd focus on that.  You'll note that I was carefull to use asterix instead of quotes on the other two quips that were just my personal summation of what I interpret his words to have meant.