Changes

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonable well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief.

:::: I saw the film last night for an article I am writing on the distinctions between British and American Conservatism -- much of it focusing on the two G's: Guns and God -- and I found the piece reasonable well made but utterly fallacious and unconvincingly hysterical. None of the scientific arguments hold up and the suggestions of a witch hunt are feeble beyond belief. That said, Nathan above is clearly a hoax by somebody taking the Mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:21, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

 

That said, Nathan above is clearly a hoax by somebody taking the Mickey out of Conservapedia's core readership. It's quite funny, but there's no way it's genuine. [[User:KeithJoseph|KeithJoseph]] 14:21, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

==Biblical position==

==Biblical position==