Clarifying a few things.
The essay was not written by me, I merely agree with it.
I certainly didn't mean to insult Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, this is a topic where I'll gladly let someone else argue because I do not know enough about him to have a considered opinion of him. My problem is not with people of faith (indeed, I'm glad to count several Christians among my friends, even though I myself am agnostic), but with people who have lost sight of reality. Listening to Bush for any amount of time gives me the distinct impression that he is no longer quite on our planet, if you get my drift.
Abortion, nonewithstanding moral issues, should be legal, precisely because this is a decision you should be able to make. Like so many things in morality, we do not know where life begins. There is no scientific answer. We do not know if there are souls; we cannot even define what constitutes a person. However, we can have beliefs in either direction, and I tend to fall pro-choice. This applies equally to homosexual marriage (gay rights in general, actually), freedom of speech, censorship and gun control. We are all responsible for what we do and what we say. In the end, no law can dictate all but the most basic morality, and any attempt to do so will lead to a reduction of overall freedom while not solving the original moral dilemma.
As for the "fight back" part, my German citizenship lead me through a nine month period of military service. We were not trained to kill, but we were trained to fight. Combat is always the last option, but when it is chosen, it must be fought quickly and decisively. The goal of any sensible military operation is to destroy your enemy's ability to oppose you while minimizing collateral damage. We turn the other cheek once, then we knock you on your rear and put you in a jointlock.
On eating animals...this is a difficult topic, but I believe it is OK to kill animals for food. Blabbering nonewithstanding, I have yet to come across a vegetarian diet that is actually demonstrably as healthy as a balance of "normal" food. I know you're all going "No fair!", but the fact of the matter is that humans are omnivores, hunters and gatherers for a far longer time than we have spent living in mostly one place. I believe the answer to the problem is finding ways to create meat without killing animals; science is making progress here. In the meantime, we should treat the animals we do eat as well as possible.
Lastly, terrorism is the weapon of the disenfranchised. I do not mean to come off sounding superior, but please consider that the Middle East has long been gridlocked in tribal wars and such. Europe and the US didn't become advanced overnight; it took hundreds of years for cultural and technological evolution even after kingdoms and such came into existance. The Middle East becomes a sort of "Prime Directive" problem, only that the damage is already done. And (please kick me if you've heard it before), supporting Israel really isn't the best way to curry favor with the rest of the Middle East. Israel has started aggressive wars against each and every one of their neighbours, violates three times as many UN resolutions as the Iraq did at the time of the invasion, and is the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons. I don't even need to start on anything they're doing right now; these three things alone explain a lot.
There. That ought to feed the flames a bit.
Gatac