Patterico's Pontifications

4/30/2011

Some Quick Takes

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 9:06 pm

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Just short commentary on a bunch of random stories.

First, we see that we have killed one of Qdaffy’s* sons.  Good, may he roast in flames, but um, then I guess we have to kill Qdaffy, too, right?  Otherwise there will be a terrorist reprisal, right?

Boy it’s a good thing that Obama went into this war with the consent of the American people and of Congress as he himself said was constitutionally required.  Oh that’s right, he didn’t. Sigh.

Also allegedly we hit a school for disabled children and an orphanage.  Um, color me skeptical.  To hear these dictators talk all we hit is their orphanages, baby milk factories and so on.  It’s terrible if it happened and we should regret our mistake, but I won’t buy it until it’s confirmed after the dictator is gone.

———————————

Fox News calls in an expert who says, yeah, the layering in the birth certificate is not a sign of forgery.  I’m not an expert, but it sounds pretty plausible.  (And to put in the usual disclaimer, I am not a birther.  I believe Obama is constitutionally eligible to be president and woefully over his head.)

———————————

I agree with pretty much everything Eugene Volokh writes, here.  He is talking about a case in Pennsylvania where a Muslim man dies and his will demands the division of some of his assets according to Sharia law.  I don’t mean he divided it up himself according to his religious principles.  I mean his will said the assets in question “should be divided according to Islamic Laws and Sharia.”  So the court does it and gives twice as much to his sons as his daughters.

Volokh argues that if the man wanted to divide it that way himself that would have been okay.  Its sexist and wrong, but it’s his property and it’s his right.  But on the other hand our courts should not be in the business of interpreting the “correct” meaning of a holy book, or the contents of a faith.  And yeah, I pretty much agree with all of that. Still you should read the whole thing.

———————————

Meanwhile you might have heard that King and Spaulding, a law firm hired to represent the House of Representatives, withdrew from representation of the House in the DOMA litigation.  Well, first Ed Whelan does a good job pointing out that this action was unethical under the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Meaning they could actually get in ethical trouble over this.

But for much more fun, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has decided to fire King and Spaulding over this.  And actually his argument for doing so goes beyond tit-for-tat:

[I]t is crucial for us to be able to trust and rely on the fact that our outside counsel will not desert Virginia due to pressure by an outside group or groups.

Virginia seeks firms of commitment, courage, strength and toughness, and unfortunately, what the world has learned of King & Spalding, is that your firm utterly lacks those qualities.

Ouch, that’s going to leave a mark.  You can read the whole letter here, which is continually harsh.  Cuccinelli points out, for instance, that the firm has no trouble representing terrorists, but apparently not supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act.  Hey, King and Spaulding, did you know that the terrorists would like to see every gay person murdered?  So if you drop everyone who is not perfectly politically correct on gay rights…

And of course Professor Jacobson has more thoughts.

———————————

*Qdaffy is how I have chosen to spell the name of the dictator running Libya right now, because 1) it is mocking him and 2) it seems to be about as good a spelling as any.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

59 Comments

  1. Where are Neil Young, the Dixie Chicks and those anti-war protesters now? Obama is a war criminal.

    Comment by Arizona Bob (aa856e) — 4/30/2011 @ 9:18 pm

  2. Also allegedly we hit a school for disabled children and an orphanage.

    Are we sure it wasn’t actually a Baby Milk Factory? (Helpfully identified with signs printed in English.)

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/30/2011 @ 9:42 pm


  3. *Qdaffy is how I have chosen to spell the name of the dictator running Libya right now, because…

    As long as you carefully avoid using the wrong euphemism when telling him to pull his head down to avoid being a target, no one should have a major problem with your spelling.

    Quack.

    Quack.

    Quack.

    :D

    Comment by Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 4/30/2011 @ 9:46 pm


  4. Also allegedly we hit a school for disabled children and an orphanage.

    Well, as long as we didn’t hit any disabled children IN an orphanage, that’s ok.

    Because both at once would be just too much of an offense…

    Comment by Smock Puppet (c9dcd8) — 4/30/2011 @ 9:48 pm

  5. Way to go, Ken Cuccinelli. You da man!

    Comment by PatAZ (81cf34) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:03 pm

  6. A.W. – Don’t forget more Gangster Government from Obama in the form of his NLRB challenging Boeing’s right to build a plant where it wants, in this case a right to work state.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:19 pm

  7. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Morocco-Blast-British-Travel-Writer-Peter-Moss-Named-Among-Dead/Article/201104415982599?l

    Comment by narciso (79ddc3) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:36 pm

  8. Aaron, the Bible, in which we both believe, says daughters get nothing if there are sons. Is that “sexist and wrong” too? Should a court refuse to be part of such an “injustice”? Volokh would only have a point if there were some significant dispute about what Moslem inheritance law is. But there is no such dispute, so it would be unfair to place the unnecessary burden on the testator of spelling out what those rules are, instead of just incorporating them by reference; it would be especially unfair to impose that burden on him retroactively, after his death!

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:53 pm

  9. We also got three of Ghaddafi’s grandchildren. It’s collateral damage, but it’s still something that deserves some reflection.

    Comment by Leviticus (171f24) — 4/30/2011 @ 10:56 pm

  10. “our courts should not be in the business of interpreting the “correct” meaning of a holy book, or the contents of a faith…”

    IANAL thank goodness, but don’t the courts have to do that sort of thing once in a while? Like adjudicating who gets the religious tax exemptions, special accomodations for peyote use in worship, hate crime definitions, the repatriation of museum-curated holy artifacts, etc. There’s gotta be a lot of worms in that can.

    Comment by gp (36e9db) — 4/30/2011 @ 11:33 pm

  11. milhouse which part says it?

    gp

    they take a very expansive definition of religion for tax purposes, which naturally opens it up to abuse.

    as for peyote, the S.C. doesn’t make any accommodation.

    i don’t follow how hate crime fits into that, or repatriation of holy artifacts. if its an italian religious sculpture from the 16th century, you don’t need to decide anything about doctrine to figure out it should go back to italy.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/1/2011 @ 1:15 am

  12. These are your readers. First there are many laws based on christian beliefs. Second, if you spend some time out of your mothers basement, there are many communities in NY that base civil, banking etc… even criminal laws bases on their Jewish faith.

    Comment by buck johnson (896943) — 5/1/2011 @ 3:52 am

  13. These are your readers. To be flippant about the death of others, yet claim to worship life…hmmm, wonder what they should be called.
    And terrorists want to kill gays. This is so silly i cant even respond. I am typing this while sitting on the toilet which shows you not only how i feel about your readers , but how little i think about them.?

    Comment by buck johnson (896943) — 5/1/2011 @ 3:58 am

  14. I don’t know; would a court rule that a will directing that an estate be divided according to rules set down in a work of fiction was OK? If so, I have no problem with the old bastard directing that his estate be divided according to any set of rules he likes. It’s his money, if he wants to leave it to the local home for aging prostitutes, so be it.

    Comment by C. S. P. Schofield (8b1968) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:45 am

  15. ________________________________________

    And terrorists want to kill gays. This is so silly i cant even respond.

    Exactly! In fact, I understand that fundamentalist Islamicists (I won’t label them “Islamofascists,” since that doesn’t sound nice), if not Islamicists in general, actually embrace homosexuals. In fact, I saw a video put out by Osama bin Laden where he approves of his brother marrying a dude and heartily welcomes gays joining the cause of Al-Qaeda.

    To believe or think otherwise is very unkind and very rude.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 5/1/2011 @ 6:43 am

  16. Juuust want to point out that there was a cousin buck in the family once upon a time ago…

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (f7bf67) — 5/1/2011 @ 6:54 am

  17. “Buck” is either ignorant or stupid. Or both.

    Comment by JD (306f5d) — 5/1/2011 @ 7:03 am

  18. He also cares much much much more about sites like this one than his posts argue. BM or not.

    Comment by Simon Jester (80a42d) — 5/1/2011 @ 7:23 am

  19. Regarding that orphanage/school for the disabled, that’s believable. My reason involves the phrase “human shield”.

    BTW, Milhouse didn’t mention another part of Biblical inheritance law–that the firstborn son gets a double share compared to the other sons. If there are no sons, the daughters share the estate, but were (in Biblical times) required to marry men from their own tribe. Will try to find references before I go to work later this morning.

    Comment by kishnevi (2d88a8) — 5/1/2011 @ 7:34 am

  20. Here’s a quick summary of the Biblical laws of inheritance
    http://www.giveshare.org/BibleLaw/lawindex/15.html
    It’s apparently an Evangelical oriented site.

    Comment by kishnevi (2d88a8) — 5/1/2011 @ 7:56 am

  21. milhouse which part says it?

    The inheritance laws are in Numbers 27:8-11.

    Aaron, you were also under the impression that Exodus disapproves of slavery, despite being unable to point to a single instance of such disapproval. You really should read the OT if you’re going to opine on what it says. Doing so would also put you in a better position to evaluate criticisms of Islam.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/1/2011 @ 7:58 am

  22. Opposition to immigration makes you a tyrant

    /Buck the ignorant

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:02 am

  23. Can you cite a single case in the past decade where lawyers/firms have been sanctioned for non-criminal violations of legal ethics of the left-leaning variety?

    BTW, the term “legal ethics” is an oxymoron in the category of “military intelligence”, only worse. Other than the term, there is no claim of any connection to what “normal people” would consider ethical. That is actually a paraphrase of the introduction to bar-review text on “legal ethics”. Better to be honest and call it “legal procedural rules.” But then, honesty has never played a major role in “legal ethics”.

    Comment by great unknown (261470) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:12 am

  24. Biblical inheritance law boils down to a few simple rules:

    1. A married woman’s estate goes entirely to her husband.

    2. Anyone else’s estate is divided among his/her sons, with the oldest getting a double share.

    3. If the deceased had no sons, then the estate is divided equally among his/her daughters.

    4. If the deceased had no children at all, then the entire estate goes to his/her father.

    5. If at any point in applying these rules an heir is deceased, s/he still gets his/her share, which immediate passes to his/her own heirs, applying these rules recursively. E.g. if the deceased (not being a married woman) had four sons, the oldest of whom is also deceased but left daughters, he would receive his 2/5 of the estate, which would then be equally divided among his daughters. (Note a dead person is by definition not married, so anything a woman inherits after her death would pass to her sons, daughters, or father, not to her former husband.)

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:21 am

  25. #23, re the term “legal ethics”, it’s no different from any other professional ethics, such as “medical ethics”, “academic ethics”, “journalist ethics”; the term means the internal rules that members of that profession have developed for themselves. Often these ethics are in fact unethical, in the general sense, and would be “more honoured in the breach than the observance”. For instance, internal rules against competition constitute a conspiracy against the public. But there’s no point in complaining about the usage, because that’s simply how the English language works.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:26 am

  26. I wouldn’t take a case (assuming I pass the bar and have the power to choose my clients) defending DOMA. That said, to take the case and back out for anything other than a previously unknown conflict … seems wrong. Virginia is, I think, right to fire them over this.

    Comment by aphrael (9802d6) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:42 am

  27. If the left is correct and we really are responsible for AQ and Baathist initiated deaths in Iraq, under that moral calculus how does shooting a missle and killing three children with bad lineage stack up? Because I’m not understanding how the former brought people across the West to the streets and the latter barely raises a blip, even in San Francisco.

    Comment by East Bay Jay (19f566) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:51 am

  28. “I guess we have to kill Qdaffy, too, right? Otherwise there will be a terrorist reprisal, right?”

    Looks like wiping out K-daffy and his minions BEFORE they have a chance to carry out another Lockerbie style reprisal ain’t on Obambi’s priority list.

    Big surprise, seeing as how he obviously doesn’t give a crap about America or American lives.

    Comment by Dave Surls (9fcad1) — 5/1/2011 @ 9:03 am

  29. Please disregard #27. Watching Reliable Sources I’ve just found out that I’m a racist for wanting to understand the affirmative action element to Obama going from Occidental to Columbia.

    This matters nothing to the governance of the country or the coming election in my view. Instead, this is for the media. They need a 2008 do-over and eventually, kicking and screaming, I think that’s exactly what will happen.

    Comment by East Bay Jay (19f566) — 5/1/2011 @ 9:03 am

  30. If bush is such a dumbass then how did he committ 9-11?

    And yet if bush had scared the children back then they would vote on whether to impeach him.

    And yes sharia dictates the death penalty for homosexuals. Although Osama Bin Butthead sure is confused.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/1/2011 @ 9:07 am

  31. Milhouse

    > The inheritance laws are in Numbers 27:8-11.

    Just as I thought. Golden rule supersedes.

    > Aaron, you were also under the impression that Exodus disapproves of slavery, despite being unable to point to a single instance of such disapproval

    Sure, besides freeing slaves and smiting their former masters…

    Feel free to interpret the bible differently. But that is how I feel about it, and I have hardly been alone. Both American slaves and abolitionists have agreed with me on the subject.

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/1/2011 @ 11:25 am

  32. I don’t really give a crap about Biblical or Sharia inheritance laws. I want the inheritance instructions I specify in my will to be followed, unless they prove to be illegal. If they prove to be too confusing to be interpreted according to my wishes, that’s my own damn fault.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2011 @ 11:41 am

  33. Once we have achieved a complete and glorious victory in Libya by killing Mr. Khadaffi, his family and all those who supported him we can install a puppet regime which will sooner or later (probably sooner) turn out to be as bad or worse than the previous batch of cutthroats.

    Comment by Douglas (392f36) — 5/1/2011 @ 12:18 pm

  34. Sharia inheritance laws

    I suppose the easiest avenue for the court to pursue would be to appoint the deceased’s local Imam as Executor.

    Comment by AD-RtR/OS! (ce2258) — 5/1/2011 @ 2:03 pm

  35. Milhouse: you keep missing the point. You show a case where someone says to split up his estate according to biblical law and then the court enforces it on that basis and then you have a leg to stand on. Until then.. you just completely MISSED the point. Back to class for reading comprehension for you.

    Comment by Noelie (b5f8b5) — 5/1/2011 @ 2:35 pm

  36. I say teabaggers for the same reason.

    Comment by Jenny (61a90f) — 5/1/2011 @ 3:44 pm

  37. What reason would that be, Jenny?

    Comment by JD (b98cae) — 5/1/2011 @ 3:51 pm

  38. You say teabagger because that is what the bible says to say?

    :lol:

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:09 pm

  39. talk about

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:15 pm

  40. talk about

    talk about

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:16 pm

  41. moving’

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:16 pm

  42. oh. that g isn’t opposed to be there

    But at this point I don’t think there’s anything to be done about it.

    Comment by happyfeet (760ba3) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:17 pm

  43. The inheritance laws are in Numbers 27:8-11.

    Just as I thought. Golden rule supersedes.

    If you say so, but it doesn’t justify you calling the rule “sexist and wrong”, let alone a rule less unbalanced. Unless you’re willing to call the Author of Numbers “sexist and wrong”.

    Aaron, you were also under the impression that Exodus disapproves of slavery, despite being unable to point to a single instance of such disapproval
    Sure, besides freeing slaves and smiting their former masters…

    You’ve already tried that and I shot it down. God ordered the Egyptians to free one specific group of their slaves, while explicitly allowing them to keep all their others. Nor did He rebuke them, however mildly, for having enslaved them in the first place. Had they obeyed the order to free those specific slaves the first time they were told, they’d have suffered no punishment, and would on the contrary have earned praise for their devotion and obedience. And the freed slaves are immediately told how to handle their own slaves, when they grow rich enough to buy some. How do you explain any of that?

    Feel free to interpret the bible differently. But that is how I feel about it, and I have hardly been alone. Both American slaves and abolitionists have agreed with me on the subject.

    No, Aaron, you are not free to interpret the Bible any way you like, any more than you are free to do so with the US constitution or with US statutes. Sometimes the text is capable of several interpretations, and you can choose among those, but you have no right to force in an “interpretation” that is entirely your own invention and is not supportable by the text. That is dishonest; in fact it is outright lying, and it is subjecting God to yourself instead of the other way around. The moment you start making your god say whatever you like then you are your own god.

    The fact is that not once does the Bible show even the mildest disapproval of slavery, and many times explicitly accepts it. You’re free to disapprove of slavery, but you can’t use the Bible as your source for that disapproval. That’s just the hard cold reality.

    Comment by Milhouse (a1fb5a) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:37 pm

  44. Oops, one too many blockquote tags

    Comment by Milhouse (a1fb5a) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:37 pm

  45. Noelie, the point is that the rule is not “sexist and wrong”. And there’s no reason a US court should not enforce it, if that’s what the testator wrote in his will.

    Comment by Milhouse (a1fb5a) — 5/1/2011 @ 5:38 pm

  46. “Noelie, the point is that the rule is not “sexist and wrong”. And there’s no reason a US court should not enforce it, if that’s what the testator wrote in his will.”

    Milhouse, the point is that the rule is “sexist and wrong”, but there’s no reason a US court should not enforce it, if that’s what the testator wrote in his will.

    FTFY

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/1/2011 @ 6:42 pm

  47. the point is that the rule is “sexist and wrong”,

    Well, the rule comes from the Master of the Universe. Christians believe that as well as Jews.
    So if you think the rule is sexist and wrong, go argue the matter with Him. (Nothing wrong with arguing with the Almighty. We’ve been doing it ever since Abraham.)
    Meanwhile, Milhouse and I will go on the well-founded assumption that He is a much better judge of what is or is not wrong than we are.

    Just as I thought. Golden rule supersedes.
    That’s the Christian view. We Jews see “love thy neighbor” and the inheritance laws as equal members of the set of 613 commandments–equal in their Source, equal in the authority for all Jews, equal in being for all time from Sinai forward. But one does not supersede the other, any more than Article II of the Constitution supersedes Article I.

    Comment by kishnevi (46fd97) — 5/1/2011 @ 8:13 pm

  48. “So if you think the rule is sexist and wrong, go argue the matter with Him.”

    kishnevi – Thanks, but I do not need to be told where to express my opinions or what to believe as you and Milhouse seem to think.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/2/2011 @ 1:01 am

  49. Daleyrocks, I don’t recall whether you’re a Christian. But Aaron does claim to be one, and if so he can’t very well call a rule laid down by a perfect God Himself “sexist and wrong”. The two positions are incompatible.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/3/2011 @ 12:04 am

  50. “The two positions are incompatible.”

    Milhouse – Bullsh*t. Are you a Chtristian? I believe you claim to be Jewish if I am not mistaken. What is your authority to tell Christians what is correct to believe?

    Also, please try to get you Bible citations and interpretations correct in the future, it would give you more credibility trying to opine on the religions of others.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2011 @ 12:12 am

  51. Daleyrocks, I don’t need to be a Christian to know Who Christians believe is the Bible’s Author. One cannot claim that the Bible is God’s word, and at the same time that it’s “sexist and wrong”.

    And I always get my citations right. Every single time. Because I bother to look them up. Perhaps you should try it. Or give one example where I got it wrong.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/3/2011 @ 4:03 pm

  52. “One cannot claim that the Bible is God’s word, and at the same time that it’s “sexist and wrong”.”

    Milhouse – Do all Christians believe every word in the Bible is true? Must someone agree with everything in the Bible to be a Christian? Who has filled your head with such nonsense?

    “And I always get my citations right.” – Then you are using a different version than I am, since I checked a few and your version of inheritance under Numbers on this thread did not match what I found.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2011 @ 5:03 pm

  53. Daley, if you don’t think the Bible is the word of God, at least where it quotes Him verbatim, then what can it possibly mean to be a Christian? And what discrepancy did you find? What I posted was exactly accurate. Numbers gives the rules for when a man dies; that a husband inherits from his wife is a condition of marriage, not in Numbers.

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/3/2011 @ 5:52 pm

  54. Edie Falco called Bush a sexist idiot and demanded he not run again but heh he did.

    Comment by DohBiden (15aa57) — 5/3/2011 @ 5:55 pm

  55. “Daley, if you don’t think the Bible is the word of God, at least where it quotes Him verbatim, then what can it possibly mean to be a Christian?”

    Milhouse – Answer my questions rather than posing new ones. You make pronouncements about who qualifies to be a Jew. Do you believe you have the authority and knowledge to make the same pronouncements about who qualifies to be a Christian? That is what substance of your comments amounts to. From whence does your authority and knowledge stem?

    You got the chain of inheritance wrong in Numbers above according to my research. Check it yourself.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2011 @ 7:49 pm

  56. OK, you tell me how someone who doesn’t believe the Bible is telling the truth can be a Christian. Without that belief how do you even know Jesus existed?

    And if you’re talking about a married woman’s estate going to her husband, that isn’t in Numbers, because it deals with what happens when a man dies. Men don’t have husbands, thankyouverymuch. Or is it something else that you think I got wrong?

    Comment by Milhouse (ea66e3) — 5/3/2011 @ 10:02 pm

  57. Millhouse

    > If you say so, but it doesn’t justify you calling the rule “sexist and wrong”,

    We’re still having this conversation? Okay, yes it does justify it. That is WHY the golden rule supersedes.

    > No, Aaron, you are not free to interpret the Bible any way you like[.]

    You’re going to stop me from interpreting it in an unapproved manner?

    > Sometimes the text is capable of several interpretations, and you can choose among those, but you have no right to force in an “interpretation” that is entirely your own invention and is not supportable by the text.

    I have cited text, duh.

    > The fact is that not once does the Bible show even the mildest disapproval of slavery,

    Sure, besides freeing slaves and smiting their former masters… now add in the golden rule and tell me what you think of that episode. Duh.

    > OK, you tell me how someone who doesn’t believe the Bible is telling the truth can be a Christian. Without that belief how do you even know Jesus existed?

    Seriously, the old testament is obviously not always literally factually true. I mean it pretty much says the earth is the center of the universe and we know that isn’t true.

    So why did God say it, if it wasn’t true. Because truth wasn’t the point, especially of the old testament. The point of the old testament was to introduce people to a new way of thinking about divinity. In my view the old testament is a bridge between the old pagan faiths and the enlightened faith that Jesus brought.

    So a lot of the old testament was backwards, morally, because you can’t make that leap all at once. I mean I suppose God could have snapped His fingers and forced us to, but He also chose to give us free will.

    Really, seriously, you have some nerve trying to tell Christians what they are supposed to believe about their faith, apparently trying to twist the bible in order to discredit it.

    Although ironically you are doing a great job making my point about how the courts should not be in the business of interpreting the bible. imagine if a judge had to decide which of us is right?

    Comment by Aaron Worthing (73a7ea) — 5/3/2011 @ 10:17 pm

  58. “We’re still having this conversation?”

    A.W. – Yes, because Milhouse apparently feels entitled to tell Christians what they must believe to be Christians. He has not divulged the source of his authority or knowledge, but somehow we are supposed to believe he is an expert on Christianity or something. I’m not feeling it, not even a little bit.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2011 @ 10:31 pm

  59. “And if you’re talking about a married woman’s estate going to her husband”

    Milhouse – I’m not, why do you keep bringing that red herring up?

    Why do you keep avoiding my earlier questions? I’ll repeat them for your benefit and add a new one:

    Do all Christians believe every word in the Bible is true? Must someone agree with everything in the Bible to be a Christian? Who has filled your head with such nonsense?

    Just who the f*ck do you think you are to tell people what are not legitimate questions about their faiths when you do not share their faith?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 5/3/2011 @ 10:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4205 secs.