What is interesting is how the debates shape up here. It is clear that people debate against the person and not the subject in most cases. The case of biblical interpertation makes that point really clear. Usually the paople against defined rules of interpretation are the Zealots. The God hates gays crowd. I thought you people did not like them. Now you defend their methods? You see with defined rules of interpretation it is impossible to twist the bible for ones own pupropse. It would be impossible for people to do what they have done here. Argue that Christians are hypocritical based on out of context use of passges like KK did with "thou shalt not kill" . If KK was familiar with the riules as he claimed he would have quoted all 4 and the passage in context with all other references to that passe. He did not he googled it and then used the passage just as he would have without the rules. If he believes that killing is against gods word why would he just cite the war as an example? Why would he not cite abortion, the death sentanc etc. If killing is against gods word how could he support abortion or a candidate like Kerry that clearly did. But I suppose like most things with liberals it only applies to the person you happen to be pointing the finger at that time.