| « | Dead Tired |
»
|
|
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Saturday Smorgasbord
1. Religious Wars.
There are some smart folks in the Blogosphere, but intelligence is no substitute for either perspective or judgment, and no one is uniformly knowledgeable about all things. Nope, not even your Curmudgeon.
Hearken to Eric Raymond, a generally smart fellow, as he goes wildly wrong about a subject on which he's badly misinformed:
“Surely, at worst,” they will argue, “only some kinds of faith are toxic; conveniently for us, the wrong kinds.” Harris neatly scotches that argument by quoting the Book of Deuteronomy. There is no doubt that Christian scripture tells its adherents to kill those who turn away from faith, even members of their own families. There is no doubt that Christians have behaved that way in the past; there is no doubt that Christianity only refrains from this now because most Christians have agreed to ignore inconveniently harsh passages from the Bible; and, given that the fastest-growing Christian denominations profess Biblical literalism, there is every reason to suspect that agreement is fragile and temporary. [Emphasis added by your Curmudgeon.]
This is slanderously incorrect. The Book of Deuteronomy is Old Testament, and has no relevance to the Christian New Covenant; the same applies to the bloody commands of the Book of Leviticus. The New Testament contains not one exhortation of the sort Raymond claims to exist there. More, the Founder of Christianity explicitly told His followers to love their enemies, and to do good to their persecutors. So what's going on here?
The charitable assumption is that Raymond hasn't read the New Testament, and in making his claim has relied solely on the statements of others as hostile to Christianity as he is. The uncharitable assumption...well, your Curmudgeon, being a Christian, is loath to make it.
Strangely, another generally smart fellow, Kevin Baker, quotes this demonstrably false bilge with approval. Your Curmudgeon will refrain from whacking Mr. Baker across the snout for it. He'll merely note that one ought to rely strictly on reliable authorities. Mr. Raymond, in matters of religion, has proved to be of the unreliable sort.
For further comments on this matter, please refer to this post by the esteemed Travis Corcoran.
2. Two-Party Politics And Its Discontents.
Some interesting material can be found today at Cold Fury, regarding President Bush's decidedly un-conservative domestic policies and the dissatisfaction of conservatives with them.
As an admirer of the president, it falls to your Curmudgeon to point out that Dubya never hid his convictions, and has made good on his promises on every occasion when it was possible to do so. The results may not be to conservatives' liking, but no one can dispute their confirmation of Dubya's sound character, a matter of no small importance in itself.
Two-party politics often serves up candidates neither of whose platforms suits one's preferences. Without a "None Of The Above" option, this leaves the voter choosing the less objectionable of the two more often than not...assuming he doesn't boycott the election as meaningless.
In recent years, your Curmudgeon's litmus test has been "Would I be willing to have the candidate as a dinner guest?" If neither candidate satisfies this criterion, your Curmudgeon stays home on Election Day. For to vote an evil man into power over others is not permitted to one who values his moral standing and who hopes, when he comes at last to the Bar of Judgment, to gain the approval of his Maker.
Yes, yes, there's that nasty Christianity at work again. Pops up at the most alarming times, doesn't it?
3. Old Media In Decline.
Michelle Malkin, among others, has noted that the New York Times's stock is declining in tandem with its reputation for factual veracity. A number of commentators on the Right have been metaphorically rubbing their hands together over this development. What your Curmudgeon has yet to read is anyone's speculation on whether it might open a window of opportunity, say for some conservative foundation such as Heritage or Cato, to purchase the Gray Lady and straighten her out.
A good thing, too. Such a gambit would fail ruinously. For an example of why this would be, consider The Wall Street Journal, which, despite the conservative orientation of its editorials, is considered even more left-leaning in its reportage than the Times or the Washington Post.
The mechanism of importance here is each occupation's tendency to draw in practitioners with a particular personality type. Journalism, like entertainment, appeals overwhelmingly to emotion-oriented persons, and far less to other types. The emotion-oriented are by nature collectivistically inclined: excessively empathetic and eager to see the State move to allay human suffering. More, when relating a story they tend to slough matters of fact that conflict with the emotional "narratives" they seek to construct. In other words, they lie a lot.
Changing the ownership of a newspaper would not change the overriding importance of this dynamic to the sort of applicants it will receive and the sort of journalism they'll practice. When we speak of a paper whose principal market is ultra-liberal (Manhattan), its tendency to draw in liberal staffers and to conform its reportage to its readers' preferences will be powerfully reinforced.
Over time, the dynamic would wear the owners down...and it has all the time in the world.
4. If You Can't Intimidate 'Em...Sue 'Em!
Courtesy of Wizbang, we have this charming story from the Cartoon Jihad:
Danish Muslim groups are to report Denmark to the UN Commissioner on Human Rights for failing to prosecute the newspaper that first published controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.The 27 Muslim groups also plan to sue the newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, for defamation in a Danish court, according to their lawyer, Michael Christiani Havemann.
"Denmark is obliged through the UN to secure the civil rights of its citizens," Havemann said by telephone. "The national prosecutor won’t pursue the case and, therefore, acts as a barrier to justice to the complainants."
Henning Fode, Denmark’s director of public prosecutions, announced on Wednesday that he would not charge Jyllands-Posten, ruling that the drawings it published last September did not violate Denmark’s laws against blasphemy and racist speech.
It's possible to cripple or destroy an organization with lawsuits, even if those suits are entirely without merit, simply by forcing the organization to divert its resources from its core mission to legal defense. Walter Olson has written on this most penetratingly in his books The Litigation Explosion and The Rule Of Lawyers. Even if Denmark has a "loser pays" policy, under which the loser of a legal contest must pay the winner's legal bills, the short-term strain on an organization can bring it down, just as a tactical oversight in chess can bring defeat upon its maker even if his was the superior strategy.
Jyllands-Posten's has been the object of much support from decent Americans these past few months. Let it not falter; it's possible that the paper's survival might depend on the contributions of Americans and others who believe in the overriding importance of freedom of speech.
5. Gun Control In One State.
Laugh, if you will, at this plaint from the anti-gunners, courtesy of Jed Baer at FreedomSight:
Members of the Million Mom March and CeasefireNJ will hold a rally in Trenton on Saturday, the third anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The antigun advocates' mission: to point out that while New Jersey has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, shooting deaths in its major cities surged last year.Activists say many of the weapons come here from out of state, including from across the Delaware River in Pennsylvania. The rally will end with a march across the "Trenton Makes, The World Takes" bridge to Morrisville, Pa.
"We think that it's entirely appropriate that this rally and march will be across a bridge between Pennsylvania and New Jersey, because it's across such bridges that guns come into our state that devastate our communities," said Bryan Miller, director of CeasefireNJ. "It's an easy trip across the river."
It's not that easy at rush hour, but we'll let that go for now.
Your Curmudgeon can't help but remember the problems of socialism in one country. The socialists were forever being crossed up by the proximity of market economies, which would attract citizens and their products out of the socialist state, while simultaneously fomenting dissatisfaction among those who remained there. Until the whole world wore the yoke of socialism -- inevitable, according to its promoters -- it would be necessary to clamp the borders closed against traffic in both people and goods.
Can't do that in the United States; the Constitution forbids state governments to close their borders. So the anti-gunners have to win at the federal level. But there's the Second Amendment to consider -- and a number of recent court interpretations of the right to keep and bear arms as an individual entitlement.
Sorry, guys and gals. Better luck with your next Cause.
Comments
To be precise, Fran, the specific passage I quoted was this:
The trouble with ‘tolerance’ is that it only works as a cultural compact when all parties are civilized and have in practice largely agreed to abandon the more inconvenient claims of the religions they theoretically profess.
And I invited discussion. Your response to that quotation, it appears, is that “the Old Testament is no longer relevant,” thus Christianity (as a whole) has abandoned those “inconvenient claims.”
Fair enough - but a lot of people who “theoretically profess” to be Christians still quote those books, and still consider the Old Testament a valid part of the modern Bible.
I do not claim to be a Biblical scholar, and I did ask for discussion.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 03/18/2006 at 11:23 AM-
Posted by og on 03/18/2006 at 11:49 AM
Well, here’s your discussion, Kevin:
Christianity, as formulated by its Founder, does not claim the privilege of killing anyone for his beliefs, or for changing them. He who asserts the contrary is imputing to Christianity a doctrine it explicitly disavows:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they?” [The Gospel According To Matthew, 5:43-47]
While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to his disciples, and said, “Take this, all of you, and eat of it, for this is my body.” Then he took a cup and after giving thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, that is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. I tell you, from now on I will not drink of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.” [The Gospel According To Mark, 14:22-25]
Thus, the words of Jesus of Nazareth, the Founder of the religion Mr. Raymond claims to be inherently intolerant and violent. He who claims that that religion excuses violence against non-Christians is contradicting the explicit words of Christ, and therefore is no Christian himself.
The next time you need an authority on Christianity, why not refer to The Anchoress, or perhaps to Reverend Donald Sensing, or Reverend Paul Burgess? If they fail to suit you, as a last resort I suppose you could put your questions to me.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/18/2006 at 11:56 AMOne further comment, then I have to get to work. While I have no doubt that “the founder of Christianity explicitly told His followers to love their enemies, and to do good to their persecutors,” this does not change the fact that much evil has been done with the acceptance - and possible urging - of the Church. Just one example, the Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. <blockquote>When news of this holocaust of French Protestants reached the world, Catherine de’ Medici received the congratulations of all the Catholic powers, and Pope Gregory XIII ordered bonfires lighted and the singing of the Te Deum. Indeed, the Pope’s joy was so great that he commanded a gold medal to be minted, with the inscription, “Slaughter [strages] of the Huguenots.” He then had Giorgio Vasari paint pictures in the Vatican of “the glorious triumph over a perfidious race."</blockquote>Something doesn’t compute here.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 03/18/2006 at 11:57 AMKevin: No true Christian did those things. Period. The nature of Christianity is at odds with that behavior.
Because evil people act in evil ways and “claim” to be Christian, or do so “in the name of Christ”, does not imply that christ approves of that behavior.Posted by og on 03/18/2006 at 12:05 PMGood God, Kevin, do you really believe that any creed, however wholesome, could be made proof against being claimed by persons who sought to pervert it?
There have been persons who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity when in fact they were doing nothing of the sort. There have been evil Popes, too; read about the Renaissance Papacy if you need examples. How could their evil taint others who are true to the commands of Christ? Guilt by creedal association? Is that what you want to allege?
The world is composed of human beings—all fallible men, and some of them evil. There have been too many examples of atheists who’ve gone forth to kill and enslave to keep count. Now, imagine for a moment that some fraction of them had claimed that what they did was perfectly all right, because after all, there’s no God, so how could there possibly be a moral law against it? Would that indict atheism as a belief? Would you care to defend that position?
Do us all a favor and learn to deal with the facts of existence. There are hypocrites in the world: persons who conceal their true convictions, intentions, or behavior behind an innocent mask. Some of them call themselves Christians...but that doesn’t mean that they are. Nor do their deeds somehow taint the simple, lucid, and completely wholesome dicta of Christ, nor the innocence of those who live by them.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/18/2006 at 12:14 PMFran, I’m at work today, so I can’t devote much time to this. I’ll try to get a post out tonight or tomorrow on this topic. We’re talking past each other here. You’re hearing things I’m not saying, misinterpreting my points. This is common on hot-button topics.
But I’d like you to consider one thing: You just stated (in so many words) that the Catholic church wasn’t really Christian for a while. But there were a lot of people who followed its edicts, believing they were doing the right thing. Og calls the people who have done vile things in the name of the Church “so called christians.” But a lot of them, if not most of them thought they were Christians, and believed that what they were doing was with the approval of God. I’m sure you can understand why that bothers a lot of people.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 03/18/2006 at 12:42 PMThere have been persons who claimed to be acting in the name of Christianity when in fact they were doing nothing of the sort.
Well, if you were the devil and your purpose was to draw people away from God and Christ, the most effective way to do this would be, not to slander Christianity, but to wrap yourself in the cloak of Christianity and behave like a fool or commit terrible acts.
Now, imagine for a moment that some fraction of them had claimed that what they did was perfectly all right, because after all, there’s no God, so how could there possibly be a moral law against it?
Some of them do claim that, Fran. Jeffrey Dahmer told his father that he did what he did, because evolution taught him there was no God, and without God there was no right and wrong. Marx claimed he wanted to “dethrone God” and ended up inspiring the worst slaughter the world has ever seen. Do these things ever give atheists pause to reconsider their beliefs? Should they be considered indictments against atheism in general?
Posted by Sarah on 03/18/2006 at 01:04 PM"You just stated (in so many words) that the Catholic church wasn’t really Christian for a while.”
No, I did not. Your interpretation of my statement merely reveals that you think the Church to be something it isn’t. The Church is the teachings of Christ; its adherents, number they one or billions, cannot affect that. If every living soul who called himself a Christian were an agent of evil, it would not affect the nature of the Church.
“But there were a lot of people who followed its edicts, believing they were doing the right thing. Og calls the people who have done vile things in the name of the Church ‘so called christians.’”
In which I concur with Og. Their behavior was radically at odds with Christ’s teachings; how, then, could they lay just claim to His name, or assume His endorsement of their deeds?
“But a lot of them, if not most of them thought they were Christians, and believed that what they were doing was with the approval of God.”
When belief flies in the face of objective fact—the actual, multiply recorded words of Jesus Christ—which one takes precedence? Say, isn’t that an argument I’d expect you to make?
“I’m sure you can understand why that bothers a lot of people.”
I can understand why it bothers a lot of genuine Christians. I can also understand why it thrills militant anti-Christians, who delight in tarring good Christians with the deeds of hypocrites and poseurs.
This is an argument you can’t win, Kevin. You’ve started from an indefensible premise: that Smith’s actions in contradiction of Jones’s teachings can corrupt Jones’s doctrines, which Davis sincerely tries to live by. Replace “Christianity” in your arguments by any other scholium—how about libertarianism or Objectivism?—and see where it takes you.
Your convictions about the existence of God, the truth of Christian doctrine, and so forth are your own affair. But to slander billions of people, living and dead, on the grounds that some persons who called themselves Christians committed vile deeds—deeds that Christ would have and did unconditionally condemn—goes well beyond an appropriate freedom of conscience. You’d be best advised to learn something about the Christian religion—the actual teachings of Christ, not just the history of misdeeds committed in Christ’s name—before you proceed any further. It might even move you to ask forgiveness.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/18/2006 at 01:11 PMAnd yet two other major dailies endure in New York City, and their combined circulations in the city exceed that of the Times.
The explanation, of course, is that the Grey Lady sees herself as the Voice of Liberalism nationwide - you can even get it thrown haphazardly into your yard in Oklahoma City, for not much more than you’d pay for the Oklahoman - and its connection to the City of New York itself is, at least as far as Editorial is concerned, merely an accident of birth.
Posted by CGHill on 03/18/2006 at 02:07 PMOk, I will toss my two cents in the mix (and prob get wacked on both sides).
Keven, I think where you miss Fran’s point is in this. Yes, individual members of the Catholic Church (on earth) have, fallen short of the teachings of Christ(this would apply to all the other Christian faiths as well). It does not mean, as many non believers might suggest, that they are showing their “true colors” of intolerance, control, loss of personal choice (free will). Rather it shows at one time or another the failure of men to follow the teachings of Christ, and NOT the failure of “The Church Militant” or “The Church Triumphant”. The Creed of “The Church Militant is infallible, individual members of it may not be. We fight the war here on earth. Sometimes the enemy scores a victory or wins a short term battle. But the ultimate war shall be won by “The Church Militant with unfailing and unfaltering support of “The Church Triumphant”
Posted by Guy S on 03/18/2006 at 05:17 PMDidn’t Jesus say that he wasn’t going to change the Law?
On the other hand, according to the scribes and pharisees who sit in Moses’s seat, the law in question has so many loopholes it has never been enforced.
Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger on 03/18/2006 at 11:46 PMJoseph, there were, and are, different sorts of laws. It’s been rather long since I’ve been at this sort of thing, that I probably have some terminology incorrect, but IIRC, there was the “ceremonial law”, which covered dietary practices, etc., and then there were various commands at various times directed to various people such as O.T. Kings and Judges. In addition to that, there were various covenants between Jehovah and man. While I haven’t read the ESR piece, I infer from Fran’s appraisal a lack of distinction between various laws, commands, and “The Law”. “The Law” concerns itself with sin, and does not change from O.T. to N.T. Now of course, this is the Christian dogma—I don’t know whether Orthodox Jews equate violations of dietary and other prohibitions with sin as that term is considered by Christians.
An aspect of Christian doctrine is Christ was/is the fulfillment of the law and covenants. I can’t cite chapter and verse, and my memory of this is quite hazy these days, but there is a passage along the lines of “these are but a shadow, the body is Christ”—referring back to the question, IIRC, “but what of the law and the prophets?” Part of the point being that anything which Jehovah required of the Children of Israel as part of the anticipation of the arrival of Christ, was no longer required.
Kevin, does this help you with your issue of validity of the O.T.?
I wish Raymond had cited chapter and verse.
I also wish that it weren’t way past my normal bedtime, as there is some interesting theological ground to cover here, and I rather doubt I’ll return to it anon, as tomorrows bring their own things to deal with, and I still haven’t written that posting on property rights.
Posted by jed on 03/19/2006 at 02:39 AMJoesph - Jesus said He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Someone who tries to live by the old law is saying that Jesus didn’t do the job, and is trying to complete the work on his own (rather cheeky if you ask me). That’s why the old law isn’t binding - Jesus completed the requirements of it and invites christians to partake in the benefits, through His new law found in the New Testament. As all spiritual benefits are in Christ, it’s only in Him that our confidence lies.
Posted by on 03/19/2006 at 10:23 AMSorry to burst your bubble, Curmudgeon, but Harris also cites New Testament authority for the proposition that Christians are required to kill unbelievers and apostates. Gospel of John, I think; I’d report the chapter and verse Harris quotes, but I lent my copy of “The End of Faith” to a friend yesterday.
Posted by Eric S. Raymond on 03/20/2006 at 11:49 AMSorry to burst your bubble, Eric, but a man who claims to know something firmly and incontestably should know better than to rely on secondary sources such as Mr. Harris. I’ve just read the entire Gospel of John, from first to last, and can find no such passage. If there’s such a passage anywhere in the New Testament, I challenge you to find it and present to me.
Anyone who’d like to check me can do it at this site, which has put the entire Bible, with annotations, online.
By the way, when challenged on his facts, an intellectually honest man stands ready to substantiate his own claims. He doesn’t wave a hand, refer to the works—inconveniently unavailable at the moment, so sorry—of some other person whose word he’s chosen to believe, and act as if he’s actually established his position. That sort of rhetoric suggests that he’s speaking from preconceptions rather than from actual knowledge—possibly because it suits his preferences to believe what he’s been told, rather than do the hard work of unearthing the facts.
“It’s better not to know so much than to know so many things that ain’t so.”—Josh Billings.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/20/2006 at 01:17 PMGee, I have a thought. Why don’t you go examine Harris’s evidence yourself? “The End Of Faith” is available on Amazon.
Of course, since you’re a religious apologist, I expect you will prefer to maintain your invincible ignorance rather than confronting actual, er, facts.
Posted by on 03/20/2006 at 02:28 PMMy God, Raymond, your arrogance is incredible. You make a dubious claim about an easily available primary document, you base your claim on a third party’s assertions, you admit that you haven’t read the primary document, you admit that you can’t produce the secondary reference that you claim substantiates your position—yet somehow that makes it my responsibility to find and validate the secondary document, so that your argument will stand! And for deeming that demand unjustifiable, I’m the one with no respect for facts?
You are not intellectually honest, at least where this subject is concerned. Anyone who reads your statements above this one will realize that at once. Perhaps that doesn’t trouble you, but it certainly frees me from having to take your contentions seriously.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/20/2006 at 03:21 PMTouché, Fran. Touché.
Too bad that won’t leave a mark.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 03/20/2006 at 08:08 PMThe harder you cling to your ignorance now, the stupider you’re going to look when I get my copy of “The End Of Faith” back and drop the correct cite on you.
Clue: you already look pretty stupid. I mean nothing personal in that remark, religious faith has made idiots out of better men than either of us. That’s Sam Harris’s point.
Ta ta for now. Think I’ll call my buddy Scratch and tell him I need that book back pronto…
Posted by on 03/20/2006 at 08:12 PMI wait with bated breath, Mr. Raymond. But you’ll have to E-mail it. I’ve tired of accepting insults from you at my blog, at my expense in server space and bandwidth. It’s become clear that you have little else to offer, at least for the moment. As for the moment to come: We shall see.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/20/2006 at 08:51 PMSearching books.google.com reveals the text to which ESR apparently refers:
Jesus seems to have suggested, in John 15:6, further refinements to the practice of killing heretics and unbelievers: “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and man gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.” Whether we want to interpret Jesus metaphorically is, of course, our business. The problem with scripture, however, is that many of its possible interpretations (including most of the literal ones) can be used to justify atrocities in defense of the faith.
From _The End of Faith_ page 83, via books.google.com. I would link, but it appears that Google Books doesn’t allow that.
Posted by on 03/21/2006 at 01:39 AMInteresting, JP. I saw the passage myself as I reviewed the Gospel of John, but immediately noted that it’s in the passive voice. Set in a somewhat wider context, the online Bible puts it thus:
15:1 “I am the true vine and my Father is the gardener. 15:2 He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. 15:3 You are clean already because of the word that I have spoken to you. 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me.
15:5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me—and I in him—bears much fruit, because apart from me you can accomplish nothing. 15:6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown out like a branch, and dries up; and such branches are gathered up and thrown into the fire, and are burned up. 15:7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want, and it will be done for you. 15:8 My Father is honored by this, that you bear much fruit and show that you are my disciples.”
To me, the wording suggests only Divine judgment. The sole “active-voice” actors in the passage are Christ and God the Father; no human agency is mentioned. To interpret the passage as either an exhortation to or a license for killing in the name of Christ strikes me as unsustainable, particularly when we remember the Sermon on the Mount:
“You have heard it said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they?” [Matthew 5:43-47]
...particularly since no other passage in the New Testament has been cited to support the Raymond-preferred violent interpretation. But perhaps we should wait to see what that clever young man can come up with. It’s bound to be amusing at the least.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 03/21/2006 at 06:36 AMI am flabbergasted by Eric S. Raymond, whose The Cathedral and The Bazaar and Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun I enjoyed very much. I would think he would have learned to avoid the rather, umm, sophomoric, mistakes made here. I also suspect that he failed to read John 15:6 in context, trusting Harris to not abuse the text. That’s a mistake we all make. In context, to suggest that this passage is either command or sanction for killing unbelievers requires an extraordinarily creative reading, of the sort that ESR and I would both be quite offended by if applied to our own writing, or say, to the Second Amendment.
Yours,
WincePosted by Wince and Nod on 03/25/2006 at 04:13 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
