The following passage:
In a move similar to the "hijacking" of the Southern Baptist Convention
by the fundamentalist viewpoint, the Republican Party is being
shanghaied by the Religious Right to promote their political agenda,
which is, when stripped down to the core, an attempt to legislate based
on Mosaic and Deuteronomistic law as set forth in the Old Testament of
seems to show a lot of bias. Maybe you should attribute it to someone
It seems well-argued, and you cite a lot of evidence from different
places, including several SCOTUS cases I'm not looking up. My only
overall concern is it's structure. I can't see in it the structure of a
process of persuasive argument (or even the ritual 5 paragraph essay).
That could just be me though. The other thing that I notice is the
tone, but as I don't know the audience, I can't evaluate it's
appropriateness (It seems not secular enough to me, but *shrug*)).
Are you arguing: No, and here are the supporting arguments to my no or
No, and I am not going to let it happen, damn you! Obvioulsy the latter
argument could be more persuasive, but it may not be what your professor
Okay, I'll stop now. Need to find that USB cable..
*reassembling from memory in abbreviated form*
a) Kangeroo court for proganda, need expensive lawyer to make the show look good
b) Some kind of real tribunal with real lawyers, because the adversary system and rights of the accused are part of what make us better than (someone else)
c) Now that DNA is had, will there be 'doubles' of Hussein al-Tikrit ? Will be be Duncan-ghola to Bush's god-emperor?
And if there's a poll on it, I'd say turn him over to the Hague. If they want to set up a warcrimes council in Iraq, well, selah [so be it].