Now how many people would actually admit they were unattractive? And would they still shop at a store they felt uninvited to?

Can a leopard change it's spots or a zebra change it's stripes?

This conversation about burning a "free" book seems pointless. Even our esteemed governor said that the state didn't pay for it and according to my brother-in-law, who is a Gideon, the Bibles are freely given with no expectation for their return.

The Gideons don’t go room to room themselves, slipping the books in nightstands like Bible elves. When a hotel opens, local Gideons members will present a Bible to the hotel's general manager in a small ceremony and then give enough books for each room and some extras to the housekeeping staff for distribution. In addition to hotel rooms, the Gideons also give Bibles to military bases, hospitals, nursing homes, prisons and to students on college campuses.

Each Bible handed out is free of charge, and the project is funded entirely by donations to the group. The Gideons will also replace any books that go missing or get worn out, and the group says that the books have a six-year life expectancy, on average. They don’t get bent out of shape when people ignore the “thou shalt not steal” rule when it comes to the Bibles, either. They’d rather you just take the book if you need it that badly.

Based on the success of the Gideons’ Bible project -- the group’s own statistics claim 25% of the people who check into a hotel room will read the Bible placed there -- other religious groups have begun distributing their own free literature to hotels. The Marriott hotel chain, founded by a Mormon, places the The Book of Mormon in many of its rooms, and many hotels also offer Buddhist, Hindu, Christian Scientist or Scientologist books along with the standard Gideon Bible.

Read the full text here: http://mentalfloss.com/article/30241/why-are-there-gideon-bibles-hotel-r... --brought to you by mental_floss!

@E.J.: Had to write that as my guy was looking over my shoulder. He laughed.

Glad he has a sense of humor. Where would we be if our significant others didn't?

@BorisBadEnuff: Struck a nerve, didn't I?

Nah. Just had to tweak you back. Now I'll just sit back and wait for the next installment of "BBE Talks."

@BorisBadEnuff: He/she may have accomplished a multitude of things but just to appease avenger, his/her achievements were all "under the table"..

No need to appease me BBE, I get a kick out of some of your comments. I like to show them to people when they are feeling down and depressed with themselves. After reading your comments, they all perk up and realize things are not so bad. They could be you.

By the way Rep. Simone Bell is a black woman. She was sworn into office by Chief Justice Carol Hunstein of the Georgia Supreme Court on December 22, 2009. She ran unopposed for re-election in 2010.

Born and raised in Detroit, Michigan, Bell came to Georgia to attend Agnes Scott College in Decatur. She works in the Southern regional office of Lambda Legal, a national non-profit legal group that focuses on LGBT and HIV issues.

Openly gay, Bell is the first African-American lesbian to serve in a U.S. state legislature; her partner is Valerie Acree. She is one of four openly LGBT members of the Georgia General Assembly, alongside Reps. Karla Drenner (D–Avondale Estates), Rashad Taylor (D–Atlanta) and Keisha Waites (D–Atlanta).

In the interest of sourcing, this was brought to you by way of Wikipedia.

I knew you were dying to know.

@Arnold Friend: I believe that Horsley is not representative of most Georgians, but dang. Some of the posts on this site comes very close to his madness.

You guys are a sorry bunch of yahoos. Obama has done more to kill and hunt down those responsible for attacks against the US than our previous president. Even if he ordered their capture or elimination, you guys wouldn't be satisfied because it was Obama and not a republican president that was in charge. You guys are pitiful.

FTA: ... the U.S. could send a military team to grab the men, and take them to an offsite location such as a U.S. naval ship — the same way al-Qaida suspect Ahmed Warsame was seized by special operations personnel in 2011 in Somalia. He was then held and questioned for two months on a U.S. ship before being read his Miranda rights, transferred to the custody of the FBI and taken for trial in a New York court. Warsame pleaded guilty earlier this year and agreed to tell the FBI what he knew about terror threats and, if necessary, testify for the government.

The U.S. has made preparations for raids to grab the Benghazi suspects for interrogation in case the administration decides that's the best option, officials said. Such raids could be legally justified under the U.S. law passed just after the 9/11 terror attacks that authorizes the use of military force against al-Qaida, officials said. The reach of the law has been expanded to include groups working with al-Qaida.

Athens woman says children's father choked her…instead of his chicken.

Sorry, but it was just waiting for the punch line.

@Oh-brother: Then there comes the sad day when you're just too old to run from the cops.

Or just too old to run.

@butseriously: So please don't casually dismiss me as one of "those people" (a little narrow-minded and judgmental, don't you think?). I'm just willing to err on the side of caution when it comes to ending life.

If you feel I've treated you as one of "those people" it's because I see you on the opposite side of this issue. It was not an intentional affront.

While a fetus may be a human life from the moment of conception, it has no legal claim on the body or resources of its mother. Just as a patient who needs a kidney transplant cannot demand to take your kidney (or anyone else’s), a fetus cannot demand that its mother continue to give the fetus the environment needed for its continued development.

Therefore, prior to the point at which it is possible for the fetus to survive without the cooperation of its mother, it will expire if its mother withdraws her support (no different than denying a kidney) and the law should not compel the mother to continue supporting the fetus. Once the fetus can survive without its mother (even if such survival is based on use of extraordinary methods), the mother may remove her support but may not, in the process of removing that support, unnecessarily impair the fetus’ potential for continued survival. She may not unnecessarily harm the fetus’ survival prospects because the fetus has the right to continue its life as long as it can do so with the voluntary support/aid of others … i.e., it does not require the compulsion of others.   By Dr. Chuck Ormsby

Fetal viability is the potential of the fetus to survive outside the uterus after birth, natural or induced. Fetal viability depends largely on the fetal organ maturity, and environmental conditions.

There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable. According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500g (17.6 ounces) to survive. A baby's chances for survival increases 3-4% per day between 23 and 24 weeks of gestation and about 2-3% per day between 24 and 26 weeks of gestation. After 26 weeks the rate of survival increases at a much slower rate because survival is high already.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid" "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks." The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week. The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures.

Forty-one states now have laws restricting post-viability abortions. Some allow doctors to decide for themselves if the fetus is viable. Some require doctors to perform tests to prove a fetus is pre-viable and require multiple doctors to certify the findings. Eleven states have banned the procedure called intact dilation and extraction (IDE)--also known as partial-birth abortion—in the belief that this procedure is used mainly post-viability. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

PHOENIX - Calling a woman's rights "unalterably clear," a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down Arizona's nearly year-old ban on abortions at 20 weeks and beyond.

In a unanimous decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged the law on what states can and cannot restrict has varied since the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. That ruling barred states from banning a woman's right to an abortion, at least early in her pregnancy.

But Judge Marsha Berzon, writing for the court, said one thing has remained constant.

"A woman has a constitutional right to choose to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus is viable," she said, something attorneys for the state concede does not occur before 23 or 24 weeks. "A prohibition on the exercise of that right is per se unconstitutional." http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/week-abortion-ban-over...

A 1994 Honda? I realize they are reliable transportation but couldn't the thief steal a newer model? And one without a child strapped in? Hope they throw the book and few other things at him.

I enjoy reading the anti-gay nutcases on this thread. I'm waiting for the next outrageous comment. Can anyone top Z J Ruffin?

@melmarino: Does it make you sad that, no matter which moniker you are using, you're still not getting what you want?

I'm a fairly happy man. Got a great wife and family, good friends and a job I love doing.

What other moniker do I go by? Must be sad to be so confused. But one way to make you feel better about yourself is to believe you make no mistakes or misstatements. Sad.

@butseriously: Too bad unborn children aren't entitled to theirs.

I think the law of the land trumps your assertion.

The question is when life begins. Not your opinion. Or my opinion. Until this can be clearly defined scientifically, life should be given the benefit of a doubt.

I think, once again, that this issue has been settled except in the minds of people like you.

@JGForster: Sorry that you have no faith in me, but please don't depart this world without faith in Jesus Christ.

I have resisted all efforts to be saved for over sixty years and like Christopher Hitchens, I'll probably go to my cremation still doubting. I am married to a Christian, my family is Christian and many of my friends are Christian but none have given any valid arguments, to me, that changes my mind.

But I do admire true Christians who live their faiths, walking the walk instead of talking the talk. If you are a walker, then I commend you.

@davidxto: I addressed you not to single you out but to include you... to let you know that I am trying to understand the various points of view expressed. I am not hostile to you Big A, only looking at the problems.

I appreciate your response, David. I probably would have had no problems at all about Bibles in state parks until our esteemed Governor decided to make it an issue. I realized the issue was made by an atheist. But the atheist had a valid point in that even if the state didn't purchase the bibles they indirectly endorsed it by allowing it's presence in a state government run facility. And our Constitution forbids our government from endorsing one religion over other religions or no religion at all.

As you and others have said, the governor has now opened the door for all kinds of literature in ALL government facilities that I'd venture to say most of us would find appalling. And yes, if free literature is available in one government facility then all government facilities could be effected.

When I was a young non-believer, I used to get offended by the Bibles in motels until I realized I had the power to ignore them.

@E.J.: When I first met my wife, I thought I was the aggressor but when I look back on that first meeting, I realized, with her help, of course, that she did me more than I did her.

Maybe that was a little too much info.

@Farmer GA: I am against abortion, not because of religious beliefs, but, because I see the unborn as human and entitled to the right to life.(BTW, I am also opposed to laws that limit ones right to die as he/she sees fit) I am with you on pre-conception birth control laws, I don't like them either. I am not aware of there being any religious aspect to climate change denials.

I was not being personal. I was talking about religious organizations and not you. You are entitled to your personal beliefs about abortions. And I am entitled to mine.

@melmarino: When I make a mistake, I admit it. I'll let you know when that happens.

Yep, I've learned that it never happens with you. The smug, self-righteous walk with a heavy step making deep impressions where ever they go, until they step on thin ground. And they still insisted their steps weren't heavy when the ground breaks.

@melmarino: If you meant to specify yourself only, then speaking for what all atheists want might be construed as an overreach.

Yes, you are right ,it was an over reach. See, when I make a mistake I will admit it but you, mel, are another piece of cake.

@melmarino: Short evening in Germany? Or is it elsewhere?

Are you confusing atheists with normal strict constructionists?

No. I only really speak for myself. Maybe I was too broad?

@davidxto: I have only brought up for thinking the mechanisms by which we think and then organize our thoughts. When you can see yourself with clear observation, then something new may be learned beyond your hard won thoughts, beliefs or conditionings. The possibilities of the new are denied when we say "this is all there is.... I have no evidence of anything else." That is intellectual and spiritual dishonesty..... it is at least limiting. As Don Shmioda said, "Argue for your limitations and they are yours." Do not allow atheism to limit your potential just because you and Ben and FtM and Mr. PC and others are secure in elitist John Lennon "you're all effing peasants as far as I can see."

Did I address you? Or is this an attempt to inject your own prejudices in a context disguised as an observation? Are you trying to deny me my right to my non-belief? The conditioning is on those who profess to believe not on those who disbelieve. Religion has indoctrinated the flock to adhere to their dogma and those who won't follow their scriptures are condemned.

As the Great Habanacranata once said, "fools are a dime a dozen but it only takes dollars to open their eyes."

It is no wonder the religious right are pure capitalists at heart.

@Farmer GA: I do understand the major reason that Atheists don't like to think of their beliefs as religious in nature. It is because they want free reign to insert their beliefs into government.

Actually religious organization attempt to include their beliefs into our laws constantly. (anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-climate change, anti-gay rights, etc.) Atheists want to keep religious dogma out of government and our laws. I don't care what you believe, how you worship or wish to live your life as long as it doesn't conflict with our Constitution or infringes on my rights as a U.S. citizen.

Good debate, to all, but, I believe we have just about exhausted this topic.

Yes, a good debate, but you couldn't help but inject another topic.

@HankRearden: I own firearms, Hank. I enjoy target shooting and firing those weapons. But I also support reasonable gun control laws that make it more difficult for the criminal, the mentally disturbed and the terrorist of obtaining firearms for their nefarious purposes. That is where I have issue with you. You and your gun advocates are in favor of unchecked access to firearms by almost anyone. In Louisiana, a judge ruled that criminals convicted of felony gun violence have the right to guns. That is unacceptable to me.