Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by quill


201. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107276 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:54 am

Yes, Obama said "military" and "attack". What do you go after terrorists with? The LAPD? FBI perhaps?

Of course this would be a military strike. Any counterterrorist operation outside the US is going to be a military strike. That does not mean an invasion, and honestly, we all know that so stop trying to equate it with an invasion, it's ridiculous.

202. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107273 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:49 am

Obama said attack. Obama said Pakistan.
Obama did not say attack Pakistan. Come on, you're not being honest here.

Pakistan's government is a loose tribal collective which, off and on, threatens to degrade itself into a dictatorship. I am not going to chastise Obama for having the gall to say he would consider a strike against al-Qaeda in Pakistan. I would consider it too. That does not mean I advocate it, nor does it mean Obama does. Much less does it mean he advocates an invason of Pakistan. Get real...

203. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107269 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:47 am

I'm just going to repeat myself: if UK agents apprehended bin-Laden somewhere in America without going through the poper channels, I would not be upset with them for doing so. I would not interpret it as "an act of war" by the British government against the US and neither, I think, would most Americans. Sovereignity is important, but you shouldn't be so blinded by it that you can't see the difference between a legitimate police operation and an act of war.

204. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107264 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:40 am

Military action to "attack" al-Qaeda, not apprehend. He is advocating military strikes against Pakistan and potentially its citizens. He would be bombing a country and its citizens without a declaration of war and without the consent of the congress as is outlined in the constitution and the powers to make war.
Wait, military strikes against Pakistan? Did he say that? I thought he said military intervention against al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan.

You are misrepresenting what Obama said here. It's ridiculous that you could equate a covert counterterrorist strike against al-Qaeda with an invasion. It's my understanding that in an operation like this, our forces would be in and out in, what, six hours? And Obama never even said that he'd do it! Just that he'd consider it.

What you said here is the kicker:
Obama would merely be further undermining our constitution.
So your solution to the undermining of our Constitution is a man who thinks the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the states? Are you serious?

205. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107252 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:27 am

If you were president, and your policies exascerbated terrorism, I would think you an idiot for helicopter assaults on one man in a village in Pakistan. These people should be tried in a court of law. Summary executions are what they practice, not a civilized country.
Absolutely correct. And I wouldn't have advocated "summary executions", if you had asked. Terrorists are criminals and criminals have to be apprehended before they can be tried, generally by trained counterterrorist operatives. I did not say I would send operatives into Pakistan. I said I would consider it. But even if I, or Obama, did such a thing, it would hardly amount to the breach of international law and order that you are portraying it as. Sending counterterrorist operatives into another country to apprehend a fugitive at large is not an act of aggression against that country, but merely one of self-defense. Like I said before, it may be a diplomatic faux pas, but there's a big difference between that and an "invasion".
I am trying to vote for the candidate that best embodies what is noble and good about our country. Not the person devolving us in a tit-for-tat international war of attrition. That is precisely what the Obama plan would do.
Ron Paul's opinion is that the United Nations is not only useless, but actually a threat to our national security. If you respect international law, you can never vote for such a person.

206. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107248 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:20 am

Uhhh, Quill... It sounds like you've chosen two random names out of a hat filled with former president's names. Why exactly does either of those have less experience?
Lincoln had only served one term in Congress, as a freshman Representative, prior to his Presidential campaign. That was the extent of his political career. Clinton (Bill), I suppose, had served as governor prior to his Presidential runs, but had no experience at the Federal level and his opponents painted him as the inexperienced one.

207. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107245 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:12 am

What gives the US a right to fly helicopters into Pakistan? Do the Cubans have a right to fly into Miami and get this (Castillo was his name I believe) terrorist that blew up Cuban resorts with CIA help. Or can the Venezuelans come get him for bombing and airliner?
Ideally, I'm sure Obama would want to work out some kind of deal with Pakistan so that they would allow us to do that legally. But if I were President, and I knew bin-Laden was in Pakistan and vulnerable, I would at least consider sending a team in. Yes it's a sovereign country, but there are other considerations aside from international law. If it came to light that Spanish authorities had conducted a secret raid against a wanted global terrorist somewhere in Colorado, I would not be upset over it. Sure it's a bit rude, but it's not an invasion.

208. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107244 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 10:05 am

I said that Barack Obama had more experience as an elected official than Hillary Clinton. Hillary's first run for any political office was in 2000. At that time, Obama had already been in the Illinois senate for four years, and had been a Chicago council member before that. Obama does have more experience in elected offices--being the wife of an Arkansas governor or the wife of a President does not exactly qualify as such experience, even though I recognize it gets close.

And as for previous Presidents with less or equal experience upon entering the White House as Obama, there are two who come to mind: Abraham Lincoln and William Jefferson Clinton.

209. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107235 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:55 am

I would not consider invasion as a solution for a problem caused by invasions. The logic doesn't work.
Obama wasn't advocating an invasion. He was advocating strikes against al-Qaeda, as in teams of Navy SEALs with helicopters. That is, to be honest, how counterterrorist operations should be conducted.

210. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107228 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:49 am

It only states he would consider it, not do it. Everybody would 'consider it'.
Yes and besides, Obama was talking about "military intervention" against al-Qaeda, as in counterterrorist strikes, not an invasion.

211. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107223 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:44 am

That's true, Ron Paul actually has more experience in politics. I take that back. Obama has more experience than Hillary Clinton (in elected offices), but not as much as Ron Paul. But since Ron Paul's experience seems to have convinced him that church-state separation is a myth, I don't think it counts.

Besides, there are a whole host of other reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. The man thinks global warming is a conspiracy put forward by green energy. And personally, I consider that to be a bigger issue even than foreign policy. Ron Paul is insane.

212. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107219 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:31 am

Ok. Well if you want someone 3 years out of the state legislature of Illinois, then fine.
Obama has had more experience as an elected official than either Hillary Clinton or Ron Paul, so the "inexperience" argument against him is rather hollow when you get down to it.
The man suggested we invade Pakistan.
No, he didn't.
How the hell is he going to get public campaign financing through? Divine decree? He has to get it past a bunch of politicians who will be under enormous pressure from lobbyists.
Right, so, you hate the two-party system but won't vote for someone who wants to change it because it clearly won't work.

But just FYI, one of the responsibilities of the President involves balancing the fiscal budget--so making public campaign financing a reality would actually be a simple matter for Obama once he was elected.

213. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107210 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:22 am

Ron Paul would not need to amend the Constitution to uproot everything secular that's in it. He would simply have to appoint two more Supreme Court justices. The Constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means. If the Supreme Court determines that teaching creationism in public schools is constitutional, then it's constitutional. And under Ron Paul, it would not even matter what the Supreme Court thought because he does not think it has authority over the State courts (and neither would his appointees).

But yes, I'll be voting for Obama.

214. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107205 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:13 am

al-rawadi, you said:

If Ron Paul wins, it will be due to the support of many traditionally dem. voters who object to foreign policy. All these people will vote Dem at the local level which means Paul would not have the necessary votes in congress and the senate to ammend the constitution to the effect of reducing secularism.
He would not need any votes. All he would need to do is appoint two more Supreme Court justices who, along with Bush's appointees, agree with him that church-state separation is a myth--and it would be. And that is exactly what he will do if elected, and you know it.

Edit: You know who I'm voting for, no sense in repeating myself.

215. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107201 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:10 am

Yes, but to say "Ron Paul would not legislate religion at a Federal level" is nonsense. By dismantling the Federal government's ability to enforce the First Amendment, he certainly would be legislating religion at a federal level, no matter how you spin it. He is a born-again and has written repeatedly that it's exactly what he is trying to accomplish--a country in which state governments do not have to abide by church-state separation if they do not want to.

216. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107196 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:05 am

Yes, Anna hit the nail right on the head. The idea of limiting the Federal government's ability to enforce the First Amendment ("It's a state matter") is just another way of getting things accomplished which the Supreme Court considers unconstitutional. It's an end-run around the whole judicial system. How could you possibly endorse such a view?

217. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107193 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 9:02 am

al-radawi:

Ron Paul would not legislate religion on a federal level. I believe his position is that it is a state issue...
And if you read his writing on the subject, that's just his strategy--relegate the First Amendment to a state issue, so that states can override it whenever they want to and no one can stop them. With one move, all of those state abortion bans and church-state encroachments that the Supreme Court struck down as unconstutional become legal again, because according to Ron Paul, the Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over the states. Suddenly Texas can have Bible-reading in its schools, gays in Arkansas can be sent to jail, and so forth. You can't possibly be so gullible as to buy the kind of spin you're repeating here, can you?

218. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107187 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:58 am

Show him this video as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc8XS-PxFFA

It's from 2004, but it's funny how all of the looming Dominonist policies that are highlighted in this lecture line right up with Ron Paul's.

219. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107181 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:48 am

Yeah, nothing quite gets my gander up like atheists voting for Ron Paul.

220. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107179 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:45 am

If you don't like voting for the lesser of two evils, then again, vote for Obama. He advocates public campaign financing, which would do away with the two-party system.

221. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107174 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:40 am

al-rawandi said:

I hope Ron Paul runs as a 3rd Party candidate. Then I can vote for him.
Ron Paul said:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life. The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.
That expert comes from "The War on Religion" by Representative Ron Paul.

222. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107172 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

Also, al-rawandi, one issue that the two parties actually do differ on is church-state separation. Bush appointed two Supreme Court justices who are on record actually having said that there should not be a separation between church and state. Now two of the liberal judges on the Supreme Court are due for retirement and the person who wins the presidency will be able to appoint their replacements. If that person is Mike Huckabee or any of the other Republicans, the opinion of the Supreme Court will be that church-state separation is a myth.

223. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107168 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 8:31 am

Tyler Durden said:

Anyhoo, I can't see Mike Huckleberry winning, so don't panic just yet :)
And wilk1978 said:
I don't see Huckabee getting the republican nomination. Iowa Republicans disproportionately consist of evangelicals, most of whom came out to vote for him. There's no way he'll win in New Hampshire, or any of the larger states.
I'm sorry, but these comments strike me as naive. You guys, I'm sure, would both have said the same things about George Bush in 2000 (and again in 2004). Unfortunately, those campaigns showed us that a candidate can actually win with nothing but evangelicals, if he gets enough of them. Dismissing Huckabee's popularity as a phenomenon exclusive to the redneck states is a mistake. The national electorate is stupid and uninformed, and will vote for whichever candidate they would most like to "drink a beer with". In a general election, that would be Mike Huckabee and not Hillary Clinton. That's why we simply cannot give her the nomination. It has to go to someone like Obama, who has broad personal appeal on top of leadership capability.

224. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107091 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 3:57 am

If he gets the GOP nomination, he'll lose the support from the evangelical right due to his liberal views on abortion, gay rights, immigration.
...And you think that support will go to Hillary?

No, it doesn't matter how liberal Giuliani's social policies are--Evangelical voters will still cast their votes for him before they'll see another Clinton presidency. See Pat Robertson if you have any doubts.

As for Obama's alleged inexperience, that's mostly a Clinton fabrication. Counting his time in the Illinois senate, he's had more years as an elected official than Hillary has. And he didn't get there by sleeping with the right man.

225. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107084 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 3:45 am

I don't think Hillary has any chance of winning in a general election, even against Giuliani. 50% of the American people have already said they simply will never vote for her. She is the face of the Democratic Party and far too partisan to ever hope to win the Presidency. If she gets the nomination, I believe we are destined to have a Republican President.

226. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107051 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 2:28 am

Clearly he meant, with that statement, that as bad as those atheists are, he'd rather have an honest atheist in Congress than someone who pretends to be a Christian but is actually an atheist in disguise. I fail to see anything in that which should be "reassuring" to us atheists.

227. Huckabee: Guns, God and rock'n'roll

Comment #107043 by quill on January 4, 2008 at 2:04 am

Barack Obama has said better things than that about atheists. His father was an atheist. And he himself is only a theist in so far as "the capacity of the African American religious tradition to affect social change" is concerned. Read his book.

And as for Huckabee - I know people throw around vows like this all the time and never intend to keep them - but I say this with absolute meaning and certainty: If he ends up winning the Presidency, I plan to leave the country. As far as I'm concerned, such an event would signal the final chapter of American history. When a society reaches such a degree of systemic dysfunction that a person who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old can actually be elected to high office, then there is simply no coming back from the brink. We've been falling behind in social services, education, health care and every other facet of human life for decades now, but at least some of us have been able to hope that things could still be turned around. Mike Huckabee winning the Presidency would signify an end to that hope. America is dying, but at the point Mike Huckabee could become its President, it would actually deserve to die. And I would not want to be here when it happens.

228. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106199 by quill on January 2, 2008 at 1:21 pm

I'm going to suggest that we all post a brief correction to this D'Souza-styled nonsense in the Comments section on Newsweek's article. Normally I wouldn't, but something about this particular piece annoys me more than others. The idea that 94% of Americans believe in God is totally absurd, and blatant reinventions of reality such as that should not go uncorrected.

229. Moderates Storm The Religious Battlefield

Comment #106186 by quill on January 2, 2008 at 1:08 pm

The number of people who felt comfortable enough to tell Gallup pollsters that they didn't believe in God inched up to 6 percent this year from 2 percent in 2001.
Newsweek continues its campaign to marginalize "vociferous atheists" everywhere. In reality, the number rose to 30% according to Harris, up from 15% in 2001. This is really quite disgusting - it brings to mind the Newsweek poll earlier in the year, which concluded that atheists accounted for only 2% of the population by counting the number of people who said they believed, on a survey, that "there is nothing that exists except the material world".

230. A War On Science

Comment #105388 by quill on December 31, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Why does Behe wear the exact same hat in every interview I've ever seen him in? It's like he's afraid to be seen without it.

Maybe one of us should sneak into his office at Lehigh and steal the hat--at which point I have a feeling Mr. Behe would cease to be seen or heard from in public, and scientific knowledge would be advanced.

231. Monkey, Business

Comment #105228 by quill on December 31, 2007 at 12:02 am

I had no idea Michael Shermer had a background in economics, but in any case, I have to join others in denouncing these ideas of backward thinking. Social Darwinism may lead to a more materialistically productive society, but also by far a less ethical one.

232. Pope's exorcist squads will wage war on Satan

Comment #104958 by quill on December 30, 2007 at 6:48 am

Seriously, look at that man's face. He's like Ted Haggard. You know from the moment you look at him that he has issues.

233. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103302 by quill on December 25, 2007 at 2:52 am

These things just keep setting new records for cover ugliness.

234. Huckabee Stands by Christmas Campaign Ad

Comment #103245 by quill on December 24, 2007 at 4:14 pm

His explanation reminded me a lot of Nixon's "Checkers" speech. Just an innocent-looking bookshelf, I'm sure. One that just happens to be in the shape of a cross and have a separate spotlight on it.

Personally, I think a photo of a dog being strangled by a bunch of chortling rednecks would be just as appropriate.

235. Disquiet over schools' moment of silence

Comment #103244 by quill on December 24, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I was, frankly, stunned when this law was passed here in Illinois. We've been a blue state for more than eighty years and the idea of a school-prayer law getting passed here of all places is inconceivable to anyone who's lived in the state. Originally, it was vetoed by our governor on the grounds that it was a state-church violation--but our General Assembly, again predominantly Democrat, actually overrode his veto by a narrow margin a couple of months ago. Be assured that I penned a scathing criticism against these "soldiers of ignorance" in my university paper. I think any of us who live in America should be willing to do that much.

But at least I know that when laws like this get passed in Illinois, they get overturned. When it does, I hope the intellectual midgets who passed it have the assertiveness to appeal, because when it gets up to the Federal courts, all of those other laws in various states will be overturned as well.

236. Survey finds most Americans believe Jesus born of virgin

Comment #102382 by quill on December 22, 2007 at 2:47 pm

I'm also going to call bullshit on this poll. I happen to know that Christians account for considerably less than 75% of the population, and I don't think anyone who is not Christian would believe Jesus of Nazareth was born of a virgin.

The Ventura, Calif.-based polling firm asked 1,005 adults whether they viewed six Bible stories as literal truth or "merely as stories told to communicate life's principles."
One wonders why the options were not simply "literal truth" or "not literal truth". But then, I think I already know why. I used to have some respect for the Barna Group, but not anymore.

237. Christmas with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #102208 by quill on December 22, 2007 at 2:25 am

I don't know where Hitchens gets his statistics. Almost 8%? The nonreligious in America accounted for 14% of the population in 2001, up from 8% in 1991. Right now it's expected to have surpassed 20%, possibly much higher.

238. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102137 by quill on December 21, 2007 at 5:09 pm

The strawmen set up by the apologists in the final leg the video were fairly disappointing. They keep insisting that there was a historical Jesus. The question isn't whether there was a historical Jesus or not; it's whether the Gospel stories were lifted from other cults, and they were.

239. The Pagan Christ

Comment #102100 by quill on December 21, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Did anyone else laugh when Jesus slipped and fell?

240. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101749 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 9:38 pm

The case that we atheists need to be making in the courts of public opinion is that it's unethical to allow someone else to be punished for your sins in the first place. Presumably, if you thought someone else was going to be punished for a crime you committed, you, as an ethical person, would not allow it to happen because it would be unjust. You would certainly not accept such an offer. Being an adult means taking responsibility for your own actions, not looking for someone else to accept your punishment for you. Making that argument, I think, takes the wind out of these guilt-tripping appeals of theirs. I think it can be an effective counter-meme against this indoctrination technique.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but it was exactly this kind of emotional browbeating that led me to accept Christ (briefly) as a teenager.

241. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101644 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 4:32 pm

No kidding. If the Jesus story is "so unbelievable, it compels us to believe", then get ready to be blown away because the Mormon story is even more so.

242. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101640 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Radesq,

Price Alfred of England once disguised himself as a peasant to hide from the Vikings, but turned out to be not such a great cook and was scolded by an old woman for having burned her cakes, so the story goes.

History Channel. :)

I'm quite relieved to hear that Mother Theresa recovered her faith before she died. Presumably this was after the exorcism, which was performed two hours before prior to her death. Pretty stressful things, those exorcisms. I'm sure it wasn't easy in her condition. But the important thing is that her soul recovered its Catholic label just in time. Hooray for the Church!

243. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101483 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 12:29 pm

The archbishop said his approach was to stick strictly to what the Bible says.
...Except where the Bible proves to be full of shit.

244. Al Qaeda: We're open to questions

Comment #101450 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 11:25 am

What point is there in interviewing a dead man?

245. Whale 'missing link' discovered

Comment #101442 by quill on December 20, 2007 at 11:19 am

Clearly, this is just another kind of whale--Even noted evolutionist Hans Thewissen of Northeastern Ohio University is forced to admit that. Macroevolution, or evolution beyond one's kind, remains an unproven theory.

246. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100839 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Comment #100720 by njwong:

I had also listened to Dan's debates in "Does God Exist?" which was held in February 29, 2000, as well as "Does God Not Exist?" which was held in January 2003. That was the first time I realised that many of the debating arguments used by Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris against the religious right in their recent debates have actually been employed long before by Dan Barker. I find Dan Barker to be an excellent speaker!
Yeah. One of the things I love about Dan is that, unlike Hitchens, Harris, Dennett or even Dawkins, Dan is a certified ultra-genius. His IQ is above the 99.99th percentile. So his arguments tend to be innovative, and at debates in particular, he's more than just a speaker delivering a lecture, but an adept and clever opponent. He's the kind of person we should be calling on to slap down intellectual midgets like D'Souza, instead of people like Hitchens or Dennett who, though effective in their presentations, do not actually win in debates.

247. Way of the Master Radio talks about Dawkins' Christmas Comments

Comment #100837 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Comment #100588 by TheTrueScotsman:

We might laugh at their stupidity and simplicity but they get their message across to a US public which seems to be becoming more and more credulous...
Statistically, Christianity is declining in America and atheism and agnosticism are each growing faster than any religion. What's happened has not been an increase in religion, but an increase in the aggression and vociferousness of religion. Christianity is expected to have dropped to around 65% of the population now, down from 89% just fifteen years ago--and the more they slide, the more forceful they get about indoctrinating others.

My own former denomination, the United Methodist Church, lost 50% of its membership in America between 1990 and 2001. That should give you an example of how drastic the decline of religion in general and Christianity in specific has been these past several years.

You should have slapped your teacher "friend", or at the very least, contacted his school principal and informed him NOT to allow such a person to substitute for a biology teacher ever again.

248. Religious Freedom in Military Questioned

Comment #100828 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Comment #100811 by USA_Limey:

"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, and carrying a cross"

- Ron Paul, (Paraphrasing James Madison)
Actually, Ron Paul was quoting someone else when he said that. But here's something else that Ron Paul has said:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. [...] The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

249. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100827 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 12:07 pm

I'm sure someone's responded to this already, but:

In fairness, he doesn't have sole choice in how is children are raised - or would you prefer to unravel women's liberation?
He doesn't have sole choice, but she does?

In any case, no, I'd just prefer it made sense. I don't see how someone can believe there is no god and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud, yet send his children off to Sunday School to be indoctrinated.

250. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100768 by quill on December 19, 2007 at 10:04 am

He doesn't believe in God, but his kids are being brought up Catholic?

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next