101. Blasphemy

Comment #122606 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 3:32 pm

"Lawyers could be the solution in this case. 37. Comment #122599 by pebble on February 5, 2008 at 2:52 pm"

These sentences are not usually (if ever) carried out in Pakistan. However, the threat is enough to suppress free speech and being thrown in jail and the possibility of being murdered by some self-righteous zealot is a powerful deterrent to honest debate.

102. Blasphemy

Comment #122603 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 3:25 pm

"Too true. But Dr. Dennet is criticizing people who live in the West, both Muslim and non-Muslim 33. Comment #122573 by cowalker on February 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm "

That's not what he said. He didn't say 'Muslims living in the West'. He said Muslims.

103. Blasphemy

Comment #122569 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 1:32 pm

"The time has come for Muslims to step up to the plate "

Dr Dennett is an innocent soul. Stepping up, in Muslim countries, could mean stepping up to the gallows to be hung by the neck until dead or being done to death by a do-gooder.

104. Blasphemy

Comment #122541 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 12:20 pm

The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is our creation. It is our staunch ally. We can easily criticize the horrors we are responsible for. For an Afghan it would take enormous courage to risk death by voicing opposition to the fundamentalism that we are supporting.

105. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122456 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 9:32 am

"The logic was that sometimes good results can be attained for bad reasons.330. Comment #122444 by keith on February 5, 2008 at 9:15 am "

Be that as it may, the punishment for aggression against a sovereign state, should be paid. George Bush, by rights, whatever fraudulent excuses, or even those he was stupid enough to believe, should be behind bars in perpetuity.

106. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122275 by HughCaldwell on February 5, 2008 at 4:24 am

Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch decisively rejected the claim that the invasion of Iraq could be said to have humanitarian intentions. It's worth reading the entire article.

In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent? Brutal as Saddam Hussein’s reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government’s killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein’s vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein’s killing had ebbed.

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified;for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. ...

107. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122008 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 1:34 pm

"Has anyone bothered to discover how many of his own people had Saddam killed? 300. Comment #121954 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm "

Human Rights Watch estimated it as 250,OOO over the 25 years of Saddam's rule. This is a fraction of the murder and mayhem initiated by the United States.

108. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121916 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 10:58 am

"being so strident will piss people off 287. Comment #121913 by al-rawandi on February 4, 2008 at 10:48 am "

Hallelujah ! I've been consecrated with the same adjective as Richard Dawkins. Would you like to add 'shrill' to 'strident' to make me completely happy?

109. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121915 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 10:54 am

Wikipedia describes the invasion force thus. To call this a 'NATO invasion' is totally incorrect.

"Approximately 120,000 Soldiers and Marines from the United States, and 45,000 from the United Kingdom, as well as smaller forces from three other nations (Australia, Denmark and Poland), collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", were deployed prior to the invasion primarily to several staging areas in Kuwait. When naval, logistics, intelligence, and air force personnel are included, the invasion force was approximately 248,000 American, 45,000 British, 2,000 Australians, 300 Danish, and 200 Polish (commando squad GROM) personnel. Of those troops, all but the American, British, Australian SASR and 4RAR (Cdo) and the Polish commando squad were kept close to bases and required to avoid hostile engagements. The invasion force was also supported by Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000."

110. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121911 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 10:41 am

"I should not describe it as a NATO invasion, but all 26 NATO members have at one point or another provided training and equipment in support.283. Comment #121894 by Riley on February 4, 2008 at 10:01 am "

It's false to say that it was a NATO invasion. It's, therefore, simply untrue to say that they participated in the invasion or provided support for the invasion.

111. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121888 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 9:51 am

"Here's a great expert opinion piece and overview of the U.S. led NATO invasion of Iraq:279. Comment #121881 by Riley on February 4, 2008 at 9:45 am "

Alas this shows fabulous ignorance of the facts. There was no 'US led NATO invasion of Iraq'.

112. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121843 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 8:30 am

"I don't feel that calling me (and others) "Hoodlums" is helpful to debate.275. Comment #121839 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 8:23 am "

This is an analogy to situate the context in which those who ignore the rule of law are conducting the debate.

113. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121837 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 8:20 am

"Nothing in history exactly parallels anything else.270. Comment #121809 by Steve Zara on February 4, 2008 at 7:41 am "

We may argue if the criminal actions of the Iraqis were 'worse' than those of those of the Americans. Considering the scale of the American devastation of Iraq, it would not be difficult to argue the greater evil of American actions.

However, the exact parallel between Iraq and the USA is in that both their aggressions were in violation of the UN Charter. Hoodlums may argue over the details of the execution of the massacres, but honest men and women will see them as the same violation of the UN Charter.

114. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121796 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 7:18 am

Listening to Americans and hangers-on of the 'mistakes were made' school on Iraq is very like listening to hoodlums discussing a gangland massacre. A very good idea the St Valentines Day Massacre but the execution was botched.

No, the criminal invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and the exactly parallel aggression against Iraq by the USA in 2003, were not 'good ideas' and the blethering about the reservations on the execution of this criminal act are otiose.

115. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121733 by HughCaldwell on February 4, 2008 at 3:51 am

"... the world community-which did go along with the sanctions- ... whose soveriegnity are you defending? Comment #121639 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 9:38 pm "

The UN Security Council could not lift sanctions on Iraq if any of the veto powers opposed it. The United States yielded to humanitarian pressure by agreeing to modify the terms and and allow the introduction of the Oil for food program. However, actually ending sanctions and their devastating effect on the Iraqis was a step too far.

The sovereignty of a nation does not depend on it having a benevolent government. Of course, the UN might approve a 'dictator removal' proposal. No such proposal was put to the UN in the case of Iraq. Since the United States approves and aids many dictators, you can see that it would never make such a proposal, in case the idea might catch on.

116. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121537 by HughCaldwell on February 3, 2008 at 3:15 pm

"Were those violations reason to go to war? 256. Comment #121507 by MaxD on February 3, 2008 at 2:14 pm "

There appear to be serious delusions at work in your post MaxD. The United States is not actually the decision-making world authority. The United States is actually a member of the United Nations and is under a legal obligation to respect the sovereignty of other states. The monomaniac focus on Iraq results from an uncritical acceptance of US government war propaganda.

In its aggression against Iraq, the United States committed exactly the same crime as Iraq when it invaded Kuwait. Of course, the United States is immune from punishment. But the wisdom of criminal behaviour is open to question, especially in the nuclear era.

117. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121468 by HughCaldwell on February 3, 2008 at 1:04 pm

"some miracle solution 238. Comment #121367 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:58 am"

The problem was the alleged possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction by the Iraqis. Since there was no evidence, except the propaganda efforts to fabricate it, the weapons inspectors would have been unable to furnish the UN Security Council with a casus belli, one which was only being sought as a fig leaf by the United States in any case. The unequivocal removal of the pretext for sanctions should have led to them being actually removed although the United States might have remained intransigent. In the event that the inhumanitarian and pointless support for sanctions by the US had crumbled, what proposals might have emerged to deal with threats of war and the reality of oppression in the Middle East, I don't know.

The invasion of a sovereign state without UN approval is a criminal act. The United States committed exactly the same crime in invading Iraq as Iraq did in invading Kuwait. Military action for peacekeeping is entirely something that should be put to the UN. The principal candidate to be on the receiving end of such action in the Middle East is Israel. The unfeasability of such action underlines the role of the United States in preventing the UN from maintaining peace and justice.

118. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121350 by HughCaldwell on February 3, 2008 at 9:29 am

"Doing nothing, perhaps? 228. Comment #121340 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 9:13 am "

Lifting sanctions would not have been 'doing nothing'. A humanitarian policy which would have allowed children to thrive, may not excite you as much as bombs, bullets and devastation, but it's not 'doing nothing'. As to the 'necessary measures', it would have been for the UN to decide on that, on the basis of the final report of the weapons inspectors. The US pre-empted a peaceful solution by rushing to war to prevent it being proposed, so we don't know what the recommendation might have been. Possibly, to resume normal business with Iraq.

Unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state and the welter of propaganda surrounding it, does recall the bloodbath mentality of Herr Hitler. On this occasion, it was referred to as 'Shock and Awe'. You do seem to have a very frail memory. Couldn't you just re-acquaint yourself with a quite recent period of history and stop making irritating demands to be educated in the facts?

119. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121332 by HughCaldwell on February 3, 2008 at 8:51 am

"base his own moral decisions on a literal reading of that law. 224. Comment #121331 by keith on February 3, 2008 at 8:38 am "

What do you propose? A poetic reading?

The 'removal of a tyrant' reading of the 2003 aggression against Iraq was, presumably supposed to benefit the Iraqi people. Had humanitarian concerns been uppermost, we would have to ask what particular humanitarian catastophe threatened the Iraqis in 2003. The greatest threat was the sanctions. The obvious humanitarian act was to lift sanctions, leaving the option of any necessary measure which did not involve devastating collective punishment of the Iraqis simply in the furtherance of US foreign policy in the region.

The race to war was because a peaceful solution loomed. The UN weapons inspectors were finding no evidence to support the Weapons of Mass Destruction lies and fabrications which were being used to as a figleaf for an attack on Iraq. To avoid being left with not even this pretext, the US invaded before the weapons inspectors laid bare the sheer pointless cruelty of sanctions, insisted upon by the US.

120. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #121286 by HughCaldwell on February 3, 2008 at 7:16 am

"Do you fight off the rapist or do you submit. Depends on your personal interest in the situation - but you still make a choice. 112. Comment #121164 by scooternyc on February 3, 2008 at 3:41 am "

You have a feeble command of English and of reality to be interjecting on these issues. 'fight off' doesn't mean 'put up a struggle'. It means 'overcome' your 200 pound mighty muscled aggressor. A choice means electing for one course of action over another, equally, or within the same range of possible choices, within your control.

121. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120805 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 3:12 pm

"For a 'League of Nations' to work as Immanuel Kant posited in "Perpetual Peace",74. Comment #120714 by hayesky on February 2, 2008 at 11:22 am "

Should you commit a crime, a plea that the law is not in accordance with the views of this or that great philosopher will not save you from the consequences of your act.

122. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120803 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 3:07 pm

"A very good friend of mine (a professor of physics) married a wonderful lady who grew up in iran (she is now a naturalized US citizen with a science Ph.D.). Shortly after the Iraq invasion she took him to Iran to meet her family.76. Comment #120718 by jimbob on February 2, 2008 at 11:25 am "

"Shortly after the Iraq invasion ..." I should think enthusiasm for being invaded by the Americans will have ebbed by now, after the ghastly results of the attack on Iraq have become clear. "

123. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120802 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 3:02 pm

"That Hussein was a tyrannical dictator would mean that Steve was not supporting the invasion on basis of lies and fabrications. 75. Comment #120717 by BAEOZ on February 2, 2008 at 11:25 am "

The 'invasion' was the violation of international law and based on lies and fabrication which actually took place. Some imaginary version of events is not what's being referred to.

124. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120710 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 11:15 am

"Invasion of a sovereign state is not 100% sacrosanct. I can think of plenty of situations where it can be justified. 72. Comment #120709 by zoltix on February 2, 2008 at 11:05 am"

The United Nations Charter states that military action against another state is only permitted, subject to UN approval. Your flights of fancy have no bearing on the perfectly straightforward reality of international law which all UN members are obliged to respect.

125. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120698 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 10:36 am

"My support for the Iraq war (which I now am willing to be persuaded was naive) was on the basis of ethics. I support, where feasible, the removal of tryannical genocidal torturing dictators.60. Comment #120680 by Steve Zara on February 2, 2008 at 9:48 am "

Your ethics are of a shoddy sort if they involve supporting a violation of international law, undertaken on the basis of lies and fabrications, resulting in deaths and injuries to hundreds of thousands of people, chaotic disorder and lawlessness, social and economic catastrophe and the flight of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from their homeland.

126. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120690 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 10:26 am

"None of this makes George Galloway any less of an ally to extremists 59. Comment #120677 by Robert Maynard on February 2, 2008 at 9:44 am "

You are agreeing with me that Hitchens was wrong and Galloway was right on the issue of Iraq.

Galloway was magnificently and courageously right and Hitchens was despicably wrong. I'm entirely in favour of Hitchens in his stand on religion and the insight he shows makes it all the more difficult to excuse a man of such intellect for his stance on Iraq. As far as Galloway is concerned, he's a convinced Catholic, and I'm completely opposed to his religious position.

127. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120642 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 7:42 am

"I am either indecent or dumb. Steve Zara"

The invasion of Iraq, which Hitchens supports, was a criminal act by the criteria of the UN, which the US is signed up to accapt. Its stated justification was a pack of lies. There's nothing in the least complicated about it, except the twisted efforts to justify it.

128. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120628 by HughCaldwell on February 2, 2008 at 6:48 am

"And to all those anti war people I don't know what kind of logic says democracy is good for you but not for others. . Comment #120589 by ericcolumba on February 2, 2008 at 4:55 am"


The chaos in Iraq is not democracy. A criminal invasion of a sovereign state, based on a pack of lies as a follow-up to the massive inhumanity of the sanctions could not, decently, have the support of anybody of average perception, let alone a man of brilliant intellect like Christopher Hitchens.

129. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120413 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 3:44 pm

"This has got to be the stupidest comment yet. Hitchens, whether you like him or hate him, is in no way a fascist."

Just a throwaway statement. Yes, the Great Man is completely wrong, gutless and fascistic on the Iraq issue. Would you care to compare his windy words with the tremendous courage shown by Galloway to free the Iraqis from the cruel, crushing and murderous weight of US/UK sanctions?

130. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120238 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 10:54 am

"It doesn't make much sense to take a bribe and then never spend it."



The Iraqis didn't give you a bribe. You gave them money. You, the oil trader, got a contract from the Saddam government and you paid it the agreed percentage and kept the rest of the profits. Nothing unusual about that, except that it broke UN sanctions.

131. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120174 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 10:05 am

"I.e. a considerable sum of money, undeclared by him, was sluiced into a charity he was sitting on. There is a completely seperate report by the UN that points to $ 120 000 that ended up in the bank account of Galloway's ex-wife."

There was no sum of money 'undeclared by him'. His ex-wife is recorded as receiving money from a Jordanian businessman to fund cancer research. Absolutely not a penny has been shown, or even alleged, to have been spent improperly by Galloway. If you'd like to make your allegations public you can contribute to Galloway's personal wealth to the extent of the damages that will be awarded against you for your reackless libel.

132. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120133 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 9:33 am

Anyway, it's a pity we have to get our account of the Hitchens-Boteach debate from such an incompetent source. Let's look forward to the video.

133. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120119 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 9:22 am

"He is a man who quite literally took the food out of the mouths of the poorest of the poor in order to defend one of the most evil men in human history."

This comment is based on a total ignorance of the Oil-for-Food program and an attempt at libelling Galloway which would find you paying out substantial sums in damages were it to be taken seriously.

134. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #120084 by HughCaldwell on February 1, 2008 at 8:45 am

"Galloway proved himself a ridiculous character who did the antiwar cause no good."

To reply in similar vaporous terms. Hitchens, on this occasion, was a fascist buffoon, showing that good men are not always admirable. Galloway was right and, although it was a rather sorry spectacle on the whole, set up on the lines of a cockfight, Galloway was no worse than Hitchens, except for having a less mellifluous voice.

135. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98199 by HughCaldwell on December 13, 2007 at 8:48 am

Dear Father Jonathan,

I heard your comments on a BBC programme, Have Your Say, where you claimed that the Holy Father had denounced Atheism as the Nazi creed. Having read the encyclical letter, SPE SALVI, I don't find that he has called Hitler an atheist. I had thought that Hitler was a Catholic. Was he not?

Hugh Caldwell
Brussels, Belgium

136. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97750 by HughCaldwell on December 12, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I asked the Holy Father if Hitler was a Catholic.
--------------------------------------------------
Holy Father,
Was Adolf Hitler a Catholic? As I understand it, baptism into the Church makes you a Catholic. Adolf Hitler, I believe, was baptised, so was a Catholic. Is this correct?
Hugh Caldwell

Write to Pope Benedict XVI: benedictxvi@vatican.va or benedettoxvi@vatican.va

137. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97744 by HughCaldwell on December 12, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Holy See: One way traffic

I've looked up the Holy See. It's one-way communication, as far as I can see. The Holy Father pontificates but is not open to being told anything or asked anything. I'm sure further research will show that Benedict, or his staff, is responsive to a request about Hitler's standing with the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

138. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97731 by HughCaldwell on December 12, 2007 at 2:56 pm

312. Comment #97541 by gr8hands on December 12, 2007 at 9:47 am HughCaldwell, sbernhoft made a slight error when he wrote about spe salvi containing a statement about Hitler being an atheist. It does not have such a statement in that document.
------------------------------------------------

They are tricky bstrds, are they not? Now, I'm going to have to ask the Holy Father if, by their arcane rules, Hitler was an atheist. I don't expect a straight answer.

139. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97531 by HughCaldwell on December 12, 2007 at 9:19 am

The Holy Father, apparently, didn't say that Hitler was an atheist.

140. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97419 by HughCaldwell on December 12, 2007 at 3:58 am

285. Comment #97347 by sbernhoft on December 11, 2007 at 11:42 pm Jonathan Morris-

I have to say, I am a bit tired of your - and the Pope's, in his recent encyclical - classification of Hitler as an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------

I looked up the Pope's recent Encylical letter SPE SALVI and didn't find the reference to Hitler. Did I miss it? Which encyclical is the reference in?

141. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97186 by HughCaldwell on December 11, 2007 at 3:57 pm

Couldn't the Pope tell us if Hitler was a Catholic?

142. Response to Theodore Dalrymple

Comment #86139 by HughCaldwell on November 8, 2007 at 8:34 am

"the existence of God"

This is a minor question. The nature and character of the imaginary person , called God and any number of other names, is the issue.

143. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83242 by HughCaldwell on October 29, 2007 at 12:10 pm

Incidentally, it's horribly patronising to give up your seat to somebody who is merely old.

144. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #83132 by HughCaldwell on October 29, 2007 at 3:14 am

Children are taught by adults, teachers and parents (or used to be) to show respect for adults. Giving up your seat is one way of showing respect. Is there an evolutionary advantage in showing respect for your elders? Whether there is or not, we can see why elders would put about the idea.

How does it work for the religious? Does a god hiss in their ear, like a child-thrashing parent, and warn them of the consequences of disobedience? This, in any case, would only be the re-inforcement of a principle which had been decided on for other reasons or motives.

145. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79443 by HughCaldwell on October 17, 2007 at 9:09 am

Abolish University Theology departments

Having thought about the Archbishop's speech, I would say it's a powerful argument for the Dawkins' thesis that theology is a non-subject and has no place in a university. Sorry, Rowan, I was hoping for better.

146. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79361 by HughCaldwell on October 17, 2007 at 4:01 am

"The classic 'Darwinism' = 'selfishness' fallacy."
Steve99

Not exactly. The point is that religion, in the Archbishop's version, is a matter of worship, contemplation and love of God and that that wouldn't seem to promote earthly survival and prosperity.

"God is no longer a first cause or creator." Steve99

That is iconoclastic. I wonder what the Pope would have to say.

147. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79356 by HughCaldwell on October 17, 2007 at 3:48 am

Oh please, Vaal

I was giving the main points of the Archbishop's lecture, as I understood it, not endorsing his point of view.

148. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79347 by HughCaldwell on October 17, 2007 at 2:33 am

The Archbishop's trouncing of Dawkins.

The Archbishop's lecture was a mellifluously delivered demand for the religion, called Religion, and the god, called God, to be discussed on their own terms. Dawkins is wrong to discuss Religion in Darwinian terms. Religion is not a survival strategy because religious people are not self-centered, but put their relationship with God above personal concerns. It is a misunderstanding to consider that Religion is offering an explanation for the universe. God is just there, at another level, as we know through faith. Faith is a necessary condition for all human activity. It is faith that others can understand us that lies at the basis of communication. Religious believers have moral integrity because their reverence for God spills over into a reverence for others. Because they know their understanding of God is imperfect, believers are self-critical and questioning. Religion is a matter of worship, contemplation and love and critics should focus their attention on these essential aspects of religious behaviour and their value.

149. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79329 by HughCaldwell on October 17, 2007 at 1:01 am

http://www.swan.ac.uk/news_centre/Releases/071004archbishopvisit/

The Archbishop's speech as been posted at the University of Swansea site.

150. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79112 by HughCaldwell on October 16, 2007 at 7:10 am

I still haven't found the text of the Archbishop's lecture and I still find it very stupid of rationalists to froth forth about a case they haven't heard.