Freepost & the embarrassing Ms. Cowin...
In England, many large organisations who want you to respond to them (usually they are selling something) can arrange to be "freepost." This is put on their advertising (or the envelopes sent) and just consists of the line ^FREEPOST^ in the address line, below the name. Then the recipient will be charged by the post office rather than the sender.
In England, if you send a post without an appropriate stamp, you will receive a card telling you where the package is, and how much it will cost you to collect it. Someone pays the postage. I am amazed the letter got to you and surprised you apparently didn't have to pay for it.
I have a little program called "UK Info Disk" & guess what... there is only one "Jennifer Cowin," and she lives in the Wirral which is on Merseyside, *i. e.,* Liverpool.
Her full address is Jennifer A. Cowin, 20 Ivy Lane, Wirral, Merseyside L46 8SJ, England. The telephone number is not given (shame). Could I recommend that she be signed up for The Skeptical Review (no postage paid, of course)? I am sure that the post office would be interested.
If you send a reply to her, tell her you asked Satan to reveal her full name and address.
(Paul Robson, e-mail autismuk@aol. com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: To understand Mr. Robson's letter, readers will have to go back to the mailbag column in the November/December 1998 issue, and read the second letter on page 12. Ms. Cowin had sent me a letter with enclosures of articles from TSR that had been copied from an internet web site. The accompanying letter complained that someone had left these articles on the table where she had "an artistic display on Noah's ark at a local library." The envelope had no postage on it, and I was not required to pay the postage here. Under my name on the address, she had printed FREEPOST, so I asked at a clerk's window what this meant. She didn't know, so she took the envelope to the postmaster, who didn't know either. All I knew after this was that Ms. Cowin, who had signed the letter but put no return address on it, had sent a rather bulky envelope to me by airmail but had not paid to do so. The expense, then, was borne by British and American taxpayers so that she could register a rather petulant complaint. I still have no idea who copied the articles and left them at her "artistic display." I receive hundreds of e-mail inquiries each year from people who live outside the United States. These people have obviously become aware of *TSR* through the internet, so I have no control over what people may do with articles they copy from web sites.
In the editor's note that I put after Ms. Cowin's letter, I asked subscribers in England who knew what ^FREEPOST^ was to send me the information. Mr. Robson, whom I know from my activities on an internet newsgroup that he also contributes to, must have read Ms. Cowin's letter and my reply to it on TSR's web site. I appreciate his sending me the explanation of "FREEPOST" in England and the added effort that he put into locating Ms. Cowin's address. I will be contacting her by sending her copies of this issue and the one in which her letter was published. She complained that the person who left the articles at her "artistic display" had acted like an "immboceil" [sic] and then referred to his/her behavior as "a really pathetic act like an immature child," so after reading my comments, she will know that her actions weren't just immature but were actually fraudulent. Perhaps she did not know that because England has a "FREEPOST" mailing provision, that wouldn't necessarily mean that other countries do too, so I'm sure she will want to pay the cost that she imposed on taxpayers by improperly sending her complaint to me. I had a postal clerk weigh her letter, and $1.32 would be the airmail cost of sending it from a U. S. post office. If she will send that amount to me, I will see that it is given to the local postmaster. Since I am not a Christian, Ms. Cowin should be able to trust me to keep this promise.
The atheistic professor's brain...
In your article "A Legend in His Own Time" (January/February 1999, pp. 2-5), you said [of C. A. Totten's reference to "the accomplished professor of astronomy" who had found 24 hours missing in time], "This sounds too much like those apologetic yarns about the atheistic professor who was silenced in his tracks by a simplistic question that any informed skeptic could easily answer, but pulpit audiences eat up this kind of stuff. That's why preachers use it."
Well, Mr. Till, the yarns are still being circulated, and preachers are still using them. Enclosed is a copy of an article a local preacher recently included in his sermon. I told him some of the problems with the article, but he wasn't very interested.
That article "Great Argument" by an unknown author came from the internet, but I don't know the source or webpage. The preacher got it from his son, who got it by e-mail from a friend, who got it by e-mail from someone, who got it by e-mail, etc.
Mr. Till, I would love to read your comments on this article in a future issue of TSR .
(Don Robertson, 644 Walnut Street, Rock Hill, SC 29730-58521)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The printout that Mr. Robertson sent me ran seven manuscript pages, too long to print, especially since it is obviously just another version of the urban myths about atheistic college professors who have been silenced by courageous Christian students. I had never seen this version before, but it has the usual elements: (1) An unnamed atheistic professor, who teaches philosophy at an unnamed university and apparently spends most of his time attacking Christianity and badgering students who profess to be Christians. (2) Students who cower in fear of the professor's constant attacks on their religious beliefs. (3) Long strands of dialog claiming to report exactly what the professor says and what the students say in reply to his direct questioning. (4) A courageous Christian student who finally stands to cross-examine the professor. (5) Gradually increasing frustration and anger as the student's cross-examination begins to corner the professor. (6) The eventual reduction of the professor to sputtering and then silence by the student's challenge to prove to the class by empirical means that he has a brain.
These urban yarns usually end with the professor running from the room while the class stays to hear the student witness to his faith in Jesus. This one ended with the class in "complete chaos" after the student says that "according to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says the professor has no brain." I did a search on the internet and found the same version of this urban legend at http://www.muzi.net/plaza/forum/6009.html. It is also posted, with slight variations, at three other sites. That anyone would think that yarns like these really happened (as the web sites invariably claim) is an unfortunate testimony to human gullibility, but, after all, people in our society grow up believing that a collection of fabulous tales that culminated with stories about a virgin-born, miracle-working, resurrected savior-god is the "inspired word of God." Compared to that, it's rather easy to believe that students all across the land are silencing atheistic professors by just asking how the professors know that they have brains.
I'd like to compile a collection of urban legends about the atheistic professor and the brave Christian student. If any of you have received versions of this tale, would you e-mail them to me at my address at the bottom of page 2?
From preacher to apostate...
Please subscribe my sister for your free first year of TSR. I hadn't visited her for several years but did so last July 4th. I found her to be almost an atheist.
Due to several years of studying the Bible critically, I have gone from a fundamentalist preacher to an apostate, thanks in part to your TSR, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, and Biblical Errancy.
Thanks again, The Skeptical Reviews are the highlights of my years.
(William "Bill" Henness, P. O. Box 73, Colchester, IL 62326)
Ten Years?
Sorry for the delay in renewing my subscription. I have enclosed a check for $61.00 for a ten-year renewal and extra postage for the issue I missed.
Keep up the good work, and congratulations on being named Internet Infidel of the month. Keep the fundamaniacs on their toes.
(Rick Chapman, 4661 West 197th Street, Cleveland, OH 44135-2334)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I appreciate Mr. Chapman's optimism, but I am halfway between 66 and 67. I may not be here to see his subscription expire. I recommend that subscription renewals be limited to two years, because I am the only one who is familiar enough with my computer files to open them and determine who is entitled to refunds if publication should have to cease.
Real Christians...
In the July/August edition, you addressed the issue of the "real Christian." You gave an excellent response to which I would like to add my own two cents.
It continually amazes me that so many Christians can wave aside all the atrocities and barbarities committed in the name of their religion by simply stating that the perpetrators were not real Christians. This illustrates a fundamental dishonesty in addressing moral issues.
Those who committed these acts were devout Bible believers. They were acting out the tenets of their faith as they understood them, and those tenets were made explicit in scripture. Whether it be the accusing of a supposed witch or the torture of anyone daring to interpret scripture differently, biblically-sanctioned morality has historically resulted in oppressive, totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. It was only the advent of the Enlightenment that allowed us to question, for the first time, some of these tenets.
The modern-day Christian who does good deeds and professes love for everyone is actually more of a humanist than a Christian. The "real Christian" is the abortion clinic bomber, the John Salvis, and the Timothy McVeighs. These are the true believers, and until society has the moral fiber to recognize this, we are all endangered.
(John Nelson, 15225 Cantara Street, Panorama City, CA 91402-4411)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm convinced that the problem of Christian moral atrocities is rooted in the two faces that the Bible puts on the Christian god. Roger Hutchinson wants to deny that there is any such thing as two faces to the Bible (he is back again, pp. 6-7 this issue), but one would have to be in a state of denial, which I believe is the case with Hutchinson, not to see that although some scriptures teach love, mercy, kindness, justice, etc., others depict intolerance, hatred, vengeance, injustice, cruelty, etc. that were presumably sanctioned or commanded by God. Some can see only the good and suppress the bad, but others apparently see the bad and act accordingly. This is discussed again in detail in my reply to Hutchinson, so there is no need to rehash it here. It would be interesting to know what kind of Bible-based religions would now exist if from beginning to end the Bible had flatly condemned hatred, intolerance, cruelty, etc. and had consistently depicted God as a kind, loving, merciful, just deity, but, of course, this is something we will never know, because the Bible presents the two faces that I have discussed in my replies to Hutchinson.
Expiration dates...
I can't quite understand how many issues are left in my subscription. I don't want to take a chance on missing one, so I am sending my check along for another year. I check my address label, and I see that every one of my issues has 6-99 on it. I don't know quite how to tell when it runs out.
Thank you so much for this wonderful little paper. I enjoy it so much and read every word. I enjoy seeing you put these fellows straight.
(Ruth C. Riales, 1205 Forest Circle, Altamonte Springs, FL 32714-2820)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Many people seem to have trouble interpreting the expiration dates on the address labels. From the dates that many subscribers send their renewal checks, I can tell that they have assumed that the first number in the expiration dates on their labels refers to the month of the year, but it doesn't. It refers to the number of the issue. Hence, 6-99 doesn't mean that the subscription expires in June of 1999 but with issue number 6 of 1999, which would be the last issue of the year, the one you are now reading. An expiration date of 5-99 would mean that the subscription expired with issue number 5 of 1999, which was the September/October 1999 issue that you received just before this one. To find the number of the issue, all you have to do is look at the line immediately above the title of the front-page article. It will always give the number of the issue you are reading. That line in this issue, for example, reads, "Volume Ten, Number Six, November/ December 1999."
Mrs. Riales included some interesting information about the 40 years that she spent in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church but asked me not to print the personal information in the letters column. I don't think she will object if I mention a comment she made after telling of her SDA experiences. "I'm glad I'm out," she said, so her reaction to having found her way out of fundamentalist superstition is the same as what others say. She also had a good closing paragraph that I am going to quote, because it illustrates the difference in people who think for themselves and those who just go along with the herd and stay trapped in religious nonsense all of their lives. She asked why "a good, perfect, loving, kind God [would] (1) make himself known only to one small nation of all the human beings on the earth, and (2) wait 4,000 years to send his `son' to earth and then send him to a very small country and not leave any evidence that he was here."
These are the kinds of questions that rational people will ask themselves about the absurdities in religion, but those who just go along without wondering or inquiring about anything they have been indoctrinated to believe from childhood doom themselves to lives of religious slavery.
Jonah's whale again...
This is a belated response to your rebuttal of my letter regarding Jonah and the whale (May/June 1999, pp. 14-15). The letter asked if a whale can physically swallow an animal as large as a man. As far as the sperm whale is concerned, the answer is yes. In the days when sailors harpooned whales from rowboats, the boats were often attacked by their quarry and capsized or broken up. Indeed, it would be worthy of comment if, during generations of whaling, no one was ever swallowed by these leviathans. As whales do not chew their food before swallowing, it is to be expected that the man or animal swallowed whole would reach the stomach of the whale relatively unscathed. If the whale was killed and the victim released within an hour or two, he would conceivable still be alive, and, if alive, would have a good chance of recovering from his ordeal.
What "obscure journal" do you refer to? I stated plainly in my letter, which you published, that the item I cited appeared in the Family Herald and Weekly Star. Calling this paper an "obscure journal" would be like calling the pope an obscure Catholic. It was the standard by which all other agricultural journals were measured. In 1945, the *Family Herald* had a weekly circulation of 305,000, a figure not exceeded by any other magazine in the country and by only one newspaper (the Toronto Star Weekly). The founder and editor, Hugh Graham (Lord Atholstan, 1848-1938) is still recognized as one of the greatest publishers in the history of Canadian journalism.
As far as researching the matter is concerned, as the Family Herald is no longer published, I have to find a scientific authority who can confirm that instances of a man being recovered alive from the stomach of a whale have occurred. At present, I do not have proof that it has happened, although a publication as reputable as the Family Herald is unlikely to have published an erroneous report. My statement is based upon a logical development of known facts (cited above). Yours, apparently, is based on hysteria.
In disparaging my point of view, you apparently find it necessary to resort to the demagogue's expedient of ridiculing your opponent in order to score points in an argument. Such tactics I do not tolerate. I have been a reader of The Skeptical Review since 1994. I will not be renewing my subscription.
(R. S. Craggs, 25 McMillan Avenue, West Hill, ON, Canada M1E 4B4)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Gee, I've encountered touchy people before, but Mr. Craggs has earned first prize. In my reply to his letter, I pointed out that he was relying on memory to report what was in an article that was published in a paper in "the '30s or '40s" but that this was the very time when Harry Rimmer had popularized his version of a modern-day Jonah legend. My article had cited the meticulous research that Dr. Edward Davis had put into checking this tale as Rimmer had told it in Harmony of Science and Scripture. If he had bothered to read Davis's article ("A Whale of a Tale: Fundamentalist Fish Stories," Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith, December 4, 1991, pp. 224-237), Mr. Craggs would have seen that Davis had gone all over the world, checking the archives of various newspapers, only to conclude that Rimmer's whale story was a legend that had no basis in verifiable facts. Davis found that even newspapers as prestigious as the New York Times had been duped into publishing the whale story as "news." That's all I need to say about Craggs' apparent belief that a story in The Family Herald and Weekly Star had to be true. Besides the obvious fact that even the most reliable news sources will sometimes publish incorrect information, Craggs' position is based on something that he remembers reading decades ago in a defunct newspaper, but he can't even remember whether the article was published in the '30s or the '40s. Anyone who would consider this reliable information would also probably believe that gospel narratives written 40 or 50 years after the fact were accurate representations of what Jesus said and did.
Furthermore, the issue is not whether whales are physically able to swallow humans or even whether whales have ever done this. It may well be that whales have swallowed humans, but that's not even the issue. The real issue is whether a whale has ever swallowed a human who remained in the whale's stomach for three days and then escaped alive. Rimmer's fish tale claimed that this had actually happened, but Davis's meticulous research proved rather conclusively that this tale was based on legend and not fact. What Cragg needs to do is find a verifiable case of a man who was swallowed by a whale and three days later was retrieved alive from the whale's stomach.
I regret that Mr. Craggs took such offense at the comments I published after his letter. I intended only to show that what he considered positive evidence was really no evidence at all. If he chooses not to renew his subscription, which expires with this issue, he has the right to do so; however, I will not agree with a position that is as obviously untenable as the one Craggs has taken in this matter. He has no real proof that a human being could survive inside a whale for three days. If he had such proof, I'm sure he would have presented it instead of spending time talking about an article that he remembered reading in the '30s or maybe the '40s.
A reason for no answer...
I received my July/August issue of TSR on 7-23-99. As usual, I read it immediately. I read with interest and sympathy the letter from Douglas L. Smith, who deplored the lack of cohesion in the atheist community. He mentioned the predatory attitude with which each organization protects its turf and told of writing complimentary letters to other letter writers but receiving no answer. I too have had this experience. He complained of the many different fees he would have to pay to find fellow free thinkers. We all pay them. That very day, 7-23-99, I e-mailed Mr. Smith. I fully identified myself, including home address and phone number, and invited him to contact me and exchange views. I apprised him of the freethought contacts page, although I am sure he must have known of it. I mentioned that there were about 85 Ohio freethought contacts listed but none from Tiffin, and suggested that he might fill that gap. That, as I said, was on 7-23-99. Today is 8-24-99. I have not heard from Mr. Smith, so would it be unkind of me to point out that Mr. Smith seems to exibit the very faults he imputed to others?
(David L. Nelson, 3944 Chickory Road, Racine, WI 53403; e-mail, dnel@ execpc.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Smith's failure to reply may not have been his fault. Since the publication of his letter in July/August, he contacted me to say that he had had problems with his e-mail service and had changed his address to imtruth@excite.com. That new address was published in the September/October issue with the last part of his letter.
This suggestion won't apply to Smith and Nelson, because they both have e-mail, but if others write ordinary letters that they don't receive answers to, they may want to consider getting e-mail. The convenience in replying to e-mail will probably bring them much better results.
^A final echo of religion?
I enjoy your writing immensely, especially the ongoing debates between you and fundamentalists. Great stuff, especially for a recovering religoholic like me. I was raised in an extremely conflicted religious environment, a hybrid of liberal Catholicism and fundamentalism. I have suffered immeasurably over the years worrying about "getting saved." As a child and adolescent, I felt as if I was completely hopeless and depraved because, after "making Jesus Christ my personal savior" (at least a dozen times) I would not be a "new creation" with a "new nature" that was supposed to be resistant to sin. Later I was a Catholic seminarian. I won't bore you with how horrible this was, but it ended with me being booted out unceremoniously because (a) I thought a lot and (b) I was persuasive enough to get other young men to think.
The only thing keeping my sanity (latent, perhaps) was my interest in science. After much twisting and writhing, I am in graduate school in chemistry at the age of 34. (Religion, if nothing else, has been time consuming.) Sometimes breaking clean of Christianity is still hard for me, though intellectually I have thrown off religion. I am slowly becoming 100% free of it. I have a child, a beautiful 3 year old boy, who will not suffer as I did. I will teach him to think for himself.
Actually, I have one experience I wanted to be certain to share with you. My life is so happy now, with my beautiful family life, my brain mostly free of religious garbage and recovering nicely, and my fascinating scientific career blossoming, that I find myself feeling grateful, but confused that I have no one to assign the gratitude to. I wonder if this is the final echo of my religious upbringing, the thought that I am not allowed to enjoy anything without shouting amen or doing the sign of the cross. It is just happiness, the happiness that comes naturally from living life with one's mind engaged and one's sense of purpose fulfilled. It is a happiness I could never feel trying to be a Christian.
One of my hopes now is to promote science and critical thinking, not just as a scientist but as a citizen and as a refugee from religion.
(Dave Eaton, 1545 Meade Court, Apt. 1, Lexington KY 40505; e-mail, dleaton@pop.uky.edu)
EDITOR'S NOTE: I'm inclined to think that Mr. Eaton's feeling that his gratitude should be assigned to something is just an echo of his religious upbringing. One doesn't escape immediately from the throes of religious indoctrination. It takes time to break all of the fetters. I suggest he assign the gratitude to himself, because he was the one who had the courage to break away from religious shackles.
Obnoxious rhetorical style?
I find the rhetorical style of many atheists to be somewhat obnoxious and at times even slightly juvenile, and while I appreciate the work that you've put into posting responses to your message board, perhaps you would come off as a bit more open-minded were your editor's notes not so quick and short-handed in their reduction of opposing viewpoints.
If liberation of the mind is indeed your goal, it might be more effective were you able to present "professional atheists" whose construction of a tenable and satisfactory belief system could manifest itself more charismatically; in other words, they note that Christians ought to be recognized by their words and deeds; ought it not be the same with atheists?
To what moral code of freely chosen right conduct might they bind themselves and others were the atheist movement really to take on an evangelical mission as you seem to be doing by way of the internet? Is your only code the complete lack thereof? How paradoxical is that? Bear in mind that a code is not the same as an enforceable law.
With that I eagerly request a free subscription be sent to...
(Matt Felice, 451 Springhill Drive, Lexington, KY 40503; e-mail, Fiji4898@ aol.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: The free subscription for Mr. Felice began with the issue before this one, but I don't know whether I should dare comment on his letter or not. He finds the rhetorical style of many atheists to be "somewhat obnoxious and at times even slightly juvenile," but apparently he doesn't find it obnoxious to tell atheists that he finds their rhetorical style to be "somewhat obnoxious and at times even slightly juvenile." Why do I find an incongruity in that statement? Shouldn't someone who is apparently trying to convince atheists to make their rhetoric less strident find a more diplomatic way to state his disapproval than to call it "obnoxious" and "juvenile." I assume that Mr. Felice has heard the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm sure Mr. Felice intended to include me in those atheists whose rhetoric he finds obnoxious and juvenile, so I'll at least try to explain to him why I sometimes use rhetoric that may to him seem obnoxious. With few exceptions, I spend ten to twelve hours per day, seven days a week, working in my office writing articles in reply to biblicists like Roger Hutchinson (in this issue) and answering the apologetic attempts posted on the internet by biblical inerrantists. If I may say so myself, I think I do a creditable job of exposing the fallacies in their "arguments" and showing the absurdities of their how-it-could-have-been explanations, yet 99% of them will persist in defending a position long after it has been shown to be ridiculous. This happens day in and day out, so how long should someone go on trying to be diplomatic to someone who deserves frank reprimands rather than diplomacy? Some readers of this column have heard me say that sometimes it is proper just to call a spade a spade.
To what moral code should atheists adhere? Well, I can't speak for other atheists, but I personally subscribe to the belief that one should not do to anyone else what he would not want done to him. What's wrong with this as a guiding principle to live by? As for being recognized by their word and deeds, I consider this a major problem for Christians. Too many of them are being recognized for their words and deeds, and their words and deeds are not what the "moral code" they claim to follow requires of them.
No debate with Missler...
Well, it's been several months now and I have quit trying to get Chuck Missler to debate much less to even acknowledge a message. Chalk it up to another one that cannot defend the faith. I tried. I would like your permission to run a series called "the Best of Till" in my newsletter starting this month. Please let me know if you have any objections, requirements, or concerns.
Good stuff on the life and crimes of David in the last issue. Is there a commandment he did not break?
(John Hill, 1210 C Potters Road, Kettle Hills, WA 99141; e-mail, jhill@plix. com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Hill had asked me for permission to try to arrange a debate between Chuck Missler and me, but Hill's letter indicates that his efforts were unsuccessful. Missler was the preacher whom Michael Bradford cited in his article "Biblical Discrepancies Explained" (September/October 1999, p. 8) as a source who claimed that the book of Daniel was translated into Greek by 270 B. C. so therefore had to have been written prior to the second century B. C. In my reply to Bradford (same issue, pp. 8-10,16), I showed that Missler's source (The Encyclopedia Britannica) had said only that translation on the Septuagint had ^begun^ in the 3rd century B. C. and that Missler had distorted this to make it appear that the work had been completed by then.
As I said in my reply to Bradford, I personally consider Missler to be a pulp apologist who makes Josh McDowell look downright scholarly. I am publishing Hill's letter for the benefit of readers who may think that Missler is a competent biblical apologist. Hill's letter indicates that Missler himself may not have much confidence in his apologetic talents.
More about religious atrocities...
I've been reading the debate in TSR; the references to mass-murder are of particular interest. Within the last two years, there was an article in the review section of the Sunday Times Week that talked about mass murder during the period (I'm not exactly sure) from the 1200's to the 1500's.
The think-tank that did this study (I believe they were based in Hawaii) found that mass-murder rates were much higher during this period than our very own twentieth century.
What has kept averages down in our time is, quite obviously, the significant number of people who live in democratic countries where this evil (essentially) doesn't take place.
Too bad I didn't save the article. How do you think Mr. Hutchinson would have reacted to the numbers of mass-murders when Christianity was truly ascendent? (They typically ran over ten-percent. Not bad considering the then level of technology!)
(Michael P. Goldberg, 67-35 Yellowstone Boulevard, Apt 6T, Forest Hills, NY 11375-2610; e-mail, smithjonesinc2@juno.com)
EDITOR'S NOTE: How do I think Roger Hutchinson would react to the number of mass murders that happened when Christianity was truly ascendant? He would react the same way he has already reacted to clear evidence that Christianity's past is checkered with atrocities. He'll just say that those who did such things weren't real Christians or that they didn't act from their religious beliefs. The leopard isn't going to change his spots.
Religious atrocities were commonplace in the period Mr. Goldberg referred to in his letter. Roger Hutchinson would never agree, of course, but the political control that the church maintained at that time makes it very hard to exonerate Christianity of all blame for them. Hutchinson and his cohorts would argue that those who were responsible for atrocities like these, even though they acted in the name of religion, were not "real Christians." That would be like saying that religion is in no way responsible for the turmoil and unrest that has been going on in Northern Ireland for decades.
If Mr. Goldberg can locate the article he referred to,
I'd appreciate knowing the date of the issue. It has become commonplace
for biblical "apologists" on the internet to acquit Christianity of all
blame for atrocities committed when it was closely allied with state
governments, so I am always interested in information that shows that
the church was responsible for persecutions, inquisitions, and
massacres.
