1. Pope's 'morning after pill' speech criticized

Comment #85739 by Nessie on November 7, 2007 at 1:15 am

Exactly, Sidfaiwu.
If it's that important to you as a pharmacist, then you're in the wrong business.

2. Pascal's Wager

Comment #85737 by Nessie on November 7, 2007 at 1:11 am

I know Christians who don't care what religion you believe in. As long as you accept God in your heart, they believe that God will let you into heaven. In this case, the number of religions does not water down your chances of getting into heaven: As long as you open your heart to God's love, you're in. As an athiest I think it's bunk, of course, but it does address the "many gods" problem of Pascal's wager.

3. Praying to a milk jug

Comment #55690 by Nessie on July 12, 2007 at 2:01 am

A third conclusion is that god is in all things, even a milk jug.

Praise the Lord. Pass the Weetabix.

4. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #28125 by Nessie on March 28, 2007 at 5:09 am

Hunter,

Religion is more often dragged into stories unnecessarily. This is an interesting case in which religion is patently relevant and yet overlooked. I'm curious about why.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's because the reporter assumed that the judge was Christian and (wrongly) assumed this fact to be irrelevant. The more sinister but less likely possibility is that the judge is Muslim, in which case the offending judgment is easily traceable to religious teachings.

In any case, it's amusing that the Muslim objection is "The Koran says it's fine to beat our wife, but like Mohammed, we're too nice to exercise that God-given option." How generous.

5. Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce

Comment #27676 by Nessie on March 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

Anyone else notice the surprising omission? I wrote this letter to the NY Times:

"You reported on a German judge whose ruling cited the Koran's sanction of wife beating (March 22: "Germany Cites Koran in Rejecting Divorce"). The article failed to mention the religion of the judge. Did the reporter assume that a German judge couldn't possibly be Muslim, or was the reporter afraid of treading on cultural sensibilities? If the first case, it would show condescension to Muslims. If the second case, it would show kowtowing at the expense of relevant factual information. So, was the reporter condescending, or kowtowing?"

I very much doubt an agnostic judge would have made the same blunder.