The spectacle of celebrities voicing their political views, a California bill challenging federal authority regarding abortion rights, and the likelihood of war with Iraq provided Foxnews.com readers with a volatile mix of topics in this week's Views columns.

Readers responded to the controversial subject matter with expected passion.  

Here is a sample of this week’s mail:

In response to Fox News Watch:

Giovanni Tallino writes:

Today, we worship apelike football players, we kowtow to such pathetic politically correct ignoramuses as "Babs" or Alec Baldwin, we idolize such brainless, painted puppets as Britney Spears, and we place such harlots as Madonna on our altars. But go and ask the great unwashed whom our best brain surgeons, geneticists and rocket scientists are, and see if they know their names or accomplishments. And whose fault is it? The mass media.

Pat O’Hare writes:

I think you're missing the point here. These are powerful figures saying what other people think, echoing what they feel. If no one will listen to us, maybe they will listen to them,  or at least realize that there are other views out there other than the warmonger.

Lanell Blackwell writes:

The celebrities in this country believe that the masses are really interested in their political views. I have yet to see a celebrity interviewee who conveys any coherent political view that is objective. They operate on emotion rather than reality.

Anonymous writes:

If Ms. Streisand and other celebrities (i.e. Jessica Lange) want to take advantage of the status the public has given them through their art by mixing it with politics, fine. I just hope they remember it was the public's money that gave them what they have. As a public person, I am tired of them lambasting our government at a time when unity is critical. I will speak with my pocketbook.

Dianne Conrad writes:

I think it was great of Barbra to take a stand. People in this country are very angry at  Bush for what he is doing to this country for power and oil. The government is so worried about its status in Washington that it has stopped working for the people who elected its members.

Anonymous writes:

I think you are giving the American public too much credit here. The fact is that the Madonnas, Oprahs, Rosies and Streisands of the world do in fact impact the thought process of the young in this country, essentially creating democrats in their wake. Young people listen to these imbeciles because they know no better, and the presumption many of them make is that because these people are stars, they must know what they are talking about.

In response to ifeminists:

Pat Morgan writes:

Why do they call the right to an abortion "reproductive rights?" Shouldn't it be "un-productive" or "non-productive" rights, or something like that? To me it seems that "reproductive rights" would be the right of a couple to have a baby, not to destroy a fetus. I am not making a moral judgment about the issue. I just think that the abortion rights advocates are being deceitful by using this term. If they believe in their cause with no reservations, why is it necessary to use terms that disguise what they are in favor of? What's wrong with calling it what it is: "abortion rights?"

Randall Matlock writes:

Men who are big supporters of this right to choose charade are men who want sex at any time without cost, commitment or obligation.  In other words they want to use women to 'poke' around in and then go their care-free way.  Maybe government should not be in the business of legislating morality or sexual standards, but women as a whole should wake up and realize, on their own, what a lowly position they have been placed in with this attitude.

Marty Stickell writes:

Thank you for your informative article and for not attacking or demonizing any point of view. I am pro-life but appreciate the complexity involved in this issue. One issue I feel has not been adequately addressed is a man's right to keep an unborn child. If a woman states to a man she won't have an abortion before the fact and changes her mind after the fact, the man who acted on this information in good faith has no rights or options? He is only a donor and it is completely up to the woman to decide life or death for an unborn child. 

In response to Defense Central:

Neal Lewis writes:

If our government was comprised solely of rational and well meaning individuals, the debate would have long been over and action initiated. Unfortunately, I fear we are most likely to either suffer the horror of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack with massive causalities or end up being held hostage to such a threat by an Islamic dictator such as Saddam or worse.  We have become a nation without a clear pragmatic and moral grounding in our schools and our press. And that spells the beginning of the end for our democracy.

V. Roy Paul writes:

It occurs to me that Harry Truman fired the great Gen. MacArthur because he insisted there should be no sanctuary for our enemies who were killing our men in Korea and then escaping over the Yalu River. That was the start of both taking our lead from the U.N. and fighting without defeat of our enemies as a goal. What a shame that so many American lives have been lost since then because we have handicapped our military rather than support them towards victory! Kudos to President Bush for insisting on the defeat of Al-Qaeda and their supporters, starting with Saddam.

Artie Muller writes:

True leadership sometimes needs to stand alone. As we act out of principle and take the high moral ground, this will inspire others to follow and critics to melt away. I predict that after we go in, what we discover will leave no doubt that we did the right thing.