[Invincibly Ignorant]

But I also reject your premise. If one of you tells me to "eat s$%t", I will feel he is childish, and I may treat him appropriately. Similar language when referring to the Savior is not within several orders of magnitude. I'm dissapointed with your response - your acting like the liberals jumping to defend Clinton's actions by pointing at Newt as being just as bad - now see... that's an offensive statement that stays on this side of the line.

Not with him on this one. Just pointing out your silence when it happens on the other side. And, yes, you were around. Wasn't that long ago.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

your acting like the liberals jumping to defend Clinton's actions

By the way, there's an unwritten rule on these threads that we not compare one another to the "C" word. There are plenty of other analogies you could make.

[IMRight]

Not what I meant... I don't read every post (who could if (s)he actually has a job, kids. etc...).

If it makes you feel better. I totally reject the use of the term for use in reference to any other person (happy).

Now can we talk about the glaring difference between the two? Here's a hint for you: Define "Sacrilege"

One secular dictionary definition - "gross irreverence toward a hallowed person". Got one that would exempt poor my Havoc & his holy cat?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Not with him on this one. Just pointing out your silence when it happens on the other side. And, yes, you were around. Wasn't that long ago.

Which part of "I am not with him on this one" don't you understand?