Michael Scherer wrote, "but Utah was represented at the hearing," and then went on to describe Senator Orrin Hatch's involvement. Scherer seemingly forgot that he had already written about a Utah representative at the hearing, Brigham Young University's Jill Manning. Manning, like Hatch, represents not only Utah, but also Mormonism. Like the Bush administration, the Mormon church is at war with Science and history.

Mormons' adversity to science and history goes well beyond their run of the mill denial of evolution. They also believe that the people of the Americas are descended from a family of Jews who sailed through the Mediterranean and across the Atlantic in a giant barrel around 3,000 years ago. Further, they believe that the evil descendants of these pioneering Jews eventually wiped out all of their good relatives, and that for their crimes, God turned their skin, and the skin of their descendants, red. i.e. That's how American Indians came to be.

Mormons' historical and scientific beliefs are based on state of the art mid-nineteenth century racist ideology and fancifully translated ancient Egyptian papyri. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Mormons persist in their beliefs; which would be fine, were it not for their increasing influence on public policy. From Mormonism's massive bigotry reinforcing involvement in the Boy Scouts of America, to its anti-gay marriage crusading Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, to the United States Capital, Mormonism is a powerful regressive force.

All too often, people on both sides of this debate clumsily phrase this as a question of when life begins. The real question is when we should define something as a life whose intrinsic value demands that it be vested with rights. Let us imagine that in this hypothetical office there are also billions of bacteria, and thousands of complex microorganisms, several attractive plants, and possibly a parakeet, all of which are very much alive. We choose to rescue a two year old child above all the others, not because that child is more alive than all the other beings, but because we believe its life is more valuable.

One unfortunate consequence of being alive is that we must destroy other lives. Each of us must choose which lives we are willing to destroy, and which are worth our protection.

How can Juan Cole claim to be in favor of fair debate, and then outrageously claim as axiomatic that it a "historical fact that 'the creation of Israel entailed a moral crime against the Palestinian people'"? Are "historical facts" different from regular facts? Do "historical facts" not share the burden of needing to be true?

It shows laudable rectitude that the United States has historically supported Israel, while other supposedly democratic countries have eagerly disparaged it to ingratiate themselves amongst Israel's despotic, aggressive, and human rights abusing, but oil rich neighbors. To sponsor U.N. resolution after resolution criticizing Israel for its human rights abuses, while blithely ignoring what goes on in neighboring states is obscenely hypocritical.

Has Israel violated human rights? Definitely. Is it possible for Israel to be anything but a flawed democracy, so long as there is no separation of church and state? I doubt it, but it remains to be seen. Nevertheless, Israel more persistently threatened than any other democracy. If the people of the United States had to live with the clear and present danger that, each time we rode a bus or went to get pizza, we might get blown up, then I think we'd commit human rights abuses that would make Israel's pale in comparison.

By all means, let's be open to criticism. But, the international community, under the oil and wealth addicted influence of the Israel hating arab states, hasn't been offering even handed criticism. They criticize Israel without any regard for fairness. And, the United States has been the one kid in the school yard willing to stand up to the bullies who keep attacking the jewish kid. Does anyone seriously think that Israel's neighbors would be willing to accept the same level of responsibility that they'd like to heap on Israel? Could any country handle it?

One other thing. An Jiaoshi wrote: "is it possible at all. . . to believe that extremists' use of such reprehensible terrorist tactics as suicide bombings does not disqualify the Palestinian populace as a whole from possessing basic rights that ought to be honored?" Unfortunately, these aren't extremists any more. The majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas. They weren't voting for lower taxes. Their votes mean that the violent destruction of the state of Israel is a mainstream Palestinian desire.

Give ConeSkater a star. This is in no way a traditional Mormon wedding. You ought to edit your description.

Steve Paulson stated, "Certainly, the major tragedies of the 20th century were committed by secularists -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao."

Let's start with Hitler. Hitler didn't kill 6 million Jews by himself. He had help from millions of bigoted people, who believed the lie, spread by the Christian churches, that the Jews were culpable for the death of Christ, and were lesser human beings. Thus, secularism didn't cause the Holocaust, Christianity did.

Stalin wasn't a secularist nearly so much as he was a Stalinist. Thus, secularism didn't cause the deaths of millions of Russians, Stalinism did. And the same goes for Mao, who wasn't a secularist at all. What kind of secularist tries to have himself deified?

It's a shame Ms. Armstrong failed to set Paulson straight on his claim. Either she's grossly misinformed, or she just doesn't care.

Actually, Bill, they're all dated in the 6th through 4th centuries B.C.E. Look it up.

It looks like Bill figured it out, and posted a retraction before my post appeared. As such, I retract my second post.