L.A. archdiocese in a position to settle hundreds of sex claims

ASSOCIATED PRESS

June 18, 2007

LOS ANGELES – After years of legal wrangling, the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese may finally move to settle hundreds of clergy sex abuse claims against it following several legal setbacks and the prospect of jury trials in the months ahead.

Fifteen trials involving 172 of the more than 500 alleged victims will be heard by juries in a six-month courthouse marathon that begins July 9. A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge overseeing the cases recently ruled that Cardinal Roger Mahony can be called to testify in one of those cases, and attorneys for plaintiffs want to call him as a witness in many more.

The same judge also cleared the way for four alleged victims to seek punitive damages from the archdiocese – something that could open the church to tens of millions of dollars in payouts if the ruling is expanded to other cases.

Legal experts said the archdiocese's financial exposure and the stress of preparing for so many trials at once could mean a settlement before jury selection.

Mahony recently told parishioners in an open letter that the archdiocese will sell its 12-story administrative building and is considering the sale of about 50 other nonessential church properties to raise funds.

“I'm sure they're going to settle these cases. You just can't go to trial on that many cases,” said Pamela Hayes, an attorney who served on the National Lay Review Board, a panel formed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to study the priest abuse scandal.

Archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan said the archdiocese was eager to settle the cases soon, but the complexity of the situation could make that difficult.

In December, the archdiocese reached a $60 million settlement with 45 victims whose claims dated from before the mid-1950s and after 1987 – periods when the archdiocese had little or no sexual abuse insurance.

That leaves more than 500 lawsuits pending, and plaintiffs' attorneys plan to go to court on each one unless a settlement is reached, said Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiffs' attorney. Boucher said he hoped a few large jury verdicts in the first batch of trials would motivate the church's insurers – a longtime stumbling block – to cooperate more.

In San Diego, Bishop Robert Brom filed for Chapter 11 protection Feb. 27 hours before the first of many cases alleging that clergy members sexually abused minors was set for trial.

---

me@rescam.org

the reprobate heathen.

Do not fret... There's still time... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

You quote 'out of context' as well.

Ephesians 5:11

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (RSV)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (KJV)

Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead [let your lives be so in contrast as to] expose and reprove and convict them. (AMP)

I think that I may like the AMP version best. It spells out the meaning of the verse, rather than making one infer it. Christians are supposed to live their lives as a virtuous example for others, not to run around finger-pointing.

I'll give you that in my 'methods' I might be a little 'over-zealous', but I would hardly say that this verse was 'taken out of context'... Feel free to quote entire passages anytime, I just like to keep mine short and to the point... People are welcome to investigate further if they so choose... ;)

In other words, I am correct in that you are quoting out of context, and are counting on the reader's apathy and/or ignorance of the subject to stop them from calling B.S. on you. Thank you for making my point for me.

Almost anything can be 'proved' to be correct by using out of context quotes. Your accusations that others are quoting out of context here does not excuse your doing so in rebuttal. Why not exercise some of your grey-matter and come up with, in your own words, a clear, concise, and cogent argument on why you believe them to be incorrect? I know you can do it, if you so desire. No time like the present, Jeff.

Signed,

MajorKong, the reprobate heathen.

LOL!
(Ummm, beside posting it being a joke, you did misunderstand the lyrics. Re-read them. :) Furthermore, that band HAS been around since the early 70s, though the song was released on album in 83 or 84.)

Hahahah! That's very funny!

That's the second joke you've pulled on me today.

That's two I owe you. ;)

---

You quote 'out of context' as well.

Ephesians 5:11

Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. (RSV)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (KJV)

Take no part in and have no fellowship with the fruitless deeds and enterprises of darkness, but instead [let your lives be so in contrast as to] expose and reprove and convict them. (AMP)


I'll give you that in my 'methods' I might be a little 'over-zealous', but I would hardly say that this verse was 'taken out of context'... Feel free to quote entire passages anytime, I just like to keep mine short and to the point... People are welcome to investigate further if they so choose... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

3. Burn In Hell

YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THE THINGS I'VE DONE WRONG IN MY LIFE
WITHOUT EVEN TRYING I'VE LIVED ON THE EDGE OF A KNIFE
WELL, I'VE PLAYED WITH FIRE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET MYSELF BURNED
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE, SO I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR A TURN

BEFORE I BURN IN HELL
OH, BURN IN HELL

I'll come right out with it: I think this song is crap.

So far as the music part goes, I think it's third-rate rock. There isn't a speck of originality in it, it's all rehashed '60s and '70s rock...and not nearly as good.

So far as the lyrics go, I think they're even worse. It's trying to glamorize people being losers as being "one up" on the rest (they're not); and it's trying to equate "doing wrong" with "living on the edge" and being "free", which is also a load of crap.

I feel sorry for the way music like this turns impressionable young people away from worthy goals.


Sorry Sarge, but I have to rate this one Both Thumbs Down!

LOL!
(Ummm, beside posting it being a joke, you did misunderstand the lyrics. Re-read them. :) Furthermore, that band HAS been around since the early 70s, though the song was released on album in 83 or 84.)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

3. Burn In Hell

YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THE THINGS I'VE DONE WRONG IN MY LIFE
WITHOUT EVEN TRYING I'VE LIVED ON THE EDGE OF A KNIFE
WELL, I'VE PLAYED WITH FIRE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET MYSELF BURNED
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE, SO I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR A TURN

BEFORE I BURN IN HELL
OH, BURN IN HELL

I'll come right out with it: I think this song is crap.

So far as the music part goes, I think it's third-rate rock. There isn't a speck of originality in it, it's all rehashed '60s and '70s rock...and not nearly as good.

So far as the lyrics go, I think they're even worse. It's trying to glamorize people being losers as being "one up" on the rest (they're not); and it's trying to equate "doing wrong" with "living on the edge" and being "free", which is also a load of crap.

I feel sorry for the way music like this turns impressionable young people away from worthy goals.


Sorry Sarge, but I have to rate this one Both Thumbs Down!

---

Some verses revealed in 1843, still actual because of the Globalism policy :-)

11 It is wisdom in me; therefore, a commandment I give unto you, that ye shall organize yourselves and appoint every man his stewardship;
12 That every man may give an account unto me of the stewardship which is appointed unto him.
13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.
14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.
15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.
16 But it must needs be done in mine own away; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.
17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

Quoted from: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/104/ - underlinings by me :-)

---

Account frozen...

One must take care in garbing oneself in religious cloth and going forth exposing the 'sins' of others by shouting them from the rooftops.

I simply post verses... Some people are convicted by them, and some people are not... It all depends on who is reading them...

Is it ok to post verses out of context in an effort to demonize a peaceful religion, but not ok to quote verses in their proper context convicting those guilty of the crime?

Is there a 'double standard' here too? ;)

There is no double standard. You quote 'out of context' as well. You forgot to include the next verse (and I notice you are quoteing from the ESV, many other versions have different wording on Ephesians 5:11, therefore different meaning). But, using your ESV source, the passage reads:

But fornication and impurity of any kind, or greed, must not even be mentioned among you, as is proper among saints. Entirely out of place is obscene, silly, and vulgar talk; but instead, let there be thanksgiving. Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure person, or one who is greedy (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be associated with them. For once you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Live as children of light-- for the fruit of the light is found in all that is good and right and true. Try to find out what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what such people do secretly; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.

The meaning of the passage is that one should not go around finger-pointing. I think that perhaps you are a bit too... over-zealous in this. The word 'expose' in the ESV is translated in most other versions as 'reprove'. That is, to 'to scold or correct usually gently or with kindly intent'. One should leave the 'convicting of sin' to The Creator of All Things. He knows what is in their hearts... You don't, my friend.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMOeBTHbTUs

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

3. Burn In Hell

WELCOME TO THE ABANDONED LAND
COME ON IN CHILD, TAKE MY HAND
HERE THERE'S NO WORK OR PLAY
ONLY ONE BILL TO PAY
THERE'S JUST FIVE WORDS TO SAY
AS YOU GO DOWN, DOWN, DOWN

YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
OH, BURN IN HELL

YOU CAN'T BELIEVE ALL THE THINGS I'VE DONE WRONG IN MY LIFE
WITHOUT EVEN TRYING I'VE LIVED ON THE EDGE OF A KNIFE
WELL, I'VE PLAYED WITH FIRE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET MYSELF BURNED
TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE, SO I THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR A TURN

BEFORE I BURN IN HELL
OH, BURN IN HELL

TAKE A GOOD LOOK IN YOUR HEART, TELL ME WHAT DO YOU SEE?
IT'S BLACK AND IT'S DARK, NOW IS THAT HOW YOU WANT IT TO BE?
IT'S UP TO YOU, WHAT YOU DO WILL DECIDE YOUR OWN FATE
MAKE YOUR CHOICE NOW FOR TOMORROW MAY BE FAR TOO LATE

AND THEN YOU'LL BURN IN HELL
HEAR NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
SEE NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
OH, BURN IN HELL
LAY NO EVIL DOWN ON ME
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
SPEAK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
THINK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
OH, BURN IN HELL
PLAY WITH EVIL, 'CAUSE I'M FREE

HEAR NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
SEE NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
LAY NO EVIL DOWN ON ME
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
SPEAK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
THINK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
PLAY WITH EVIL, 'CAUSE I'M FREE
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
HEAR NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
SEE NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
LAY NO EVIL DOWN ON ME
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
SPEAK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
THINK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU
PLAY WITH EVIL, 'CAUSE I'M FREE
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL

HEAR NO EVIL, DON'T YOU SEE NO EVIL
OH, BURN IN HELL
DON'T YOU LAY NO EVIL DOWN ON ME
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
SPEAK NO EVIL, DON'T YOU THINK NO EVIL,
OH, BURN IN HELL
DON'T YOU PLAY WITH EVIL, 'CAUSE I'M FREE
YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL
HEAR NO EVIL, DON'T YOU SEE NO EVIL
OH, BURN IN HELL
DON'T YOU LAY NO EVIL DOWN ON ME

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

All praise be to Allah, for he shall smite the non-believers and the wrong-believers and they shall burn in Hell and not even have the water the dogs in hell get to lap up.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

One must take care in garbing oneself in religious cloth and going forth exposing the 'sins' of others by shouting them from the rooftops.

I simply post verses... Some people are convicted by them, and some people are not... It all depends on who is reading them...

Is it ok to post verses out of context in an effort to demonize a peaceful religion, but not ok to quote verses in their proper context convicting those guilty of the crime?

Is there a 'double standard' here too? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

“We should not lose our tempers and abuse one another. I want to say that nobody ever abused anybody else when he had the spirit of the Lord. It is always when we have some other spirit.”

How true... But doesn't 'someone' have to keep those with the 'evil spirits' in check? ;)


Ephesians 5:11
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

Matthew, Ch 7, 1-5

Latin Vulgate
7:1 nolite iudicare ut non iudicemini
7:2 in quo enim iudicio iudicaveritis iudicabimini et in qua mensura mensi fueritis metietur vobis
7:3 quid autem vides festucam in oculo fratris tui et trabem in oculo tuo non vides
7:4 aut quomodo dicis fratri tuo sine eiciam festucam de oculo tuo et ecce trabis est in oculo tuo
7:5 hypocrita eice primum trabem de oculo tuo et tunc videbis eicere festucam de oculo fratris tui

Jeffrey,
One must take care in garbing oneself in religious cloth and going forth exposing the 'sins' of others by shouting them from the rooftops. Which one is more justified before The Creator, one who proclaims their own rightousness and condemns the sins of others? Or, one who admits to being themselves a sinner and begs forgiveness?

“We should not lose our tempers and abuse one another. I want to say that nobody ever abused anybody else when he had the spirit of the Lord. It is always when we have some other spirit.”

How true... But doesn't 'someone' have to keep those with the 'evil spirits' in check? ;)


Ephesians 5:11
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Stop Using Words That Hurt

By J. Thomas Cearley
Director, LDS Family Services, Louisiana Agency

J. Thomas Cearley, “Stop Using Words That Hurt,” Ensign, Mar 2006, 58–61

What is verbal abuse? How can we avoid being verbally abusive with children?

“I probably yell at my children too much” was the contemplative response of a faithful Latter-day Saint mother to my ecclesiastical interview question “Is there anything in your home that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?”

Her response surprised me. This pleasant, soft-spoken sister was an exemplary member of our ward, as was her husband, and her children were well mannered and well liked. They were a stalwart Latter-day Saint family.

We proceeded to discuss her answer further. She spoke of feeling overwhelmed at times by family and parenting responsibilities and of shouting at her children. She was concerned that her yelling might border on “verbal abuse.”

This faithful Latter-day Saint is not alone in her struggle. Many parents yell at their children, belittle them, or criticize them. Even parents who genuinely love their children and are sincerely trying to do their best may engage in this behavior. Parents do not always realize the emotional damage they may be inflicting upon their young ones.

What Is Verbal Abuse?

According to the Church publication Responding to Abuse: Helps for Ecclesiastical Leaders, “abuse may include such acts as threats of abandonment, cursing, demeaning comments, … and other such deprivations.” This publication further explains that abuse “can deeply affect the mind and spirit, destroying faith and causing confusion, doubt, mistrust, guilt, and fear.”

Verbal abuse can include blaming (“If you would behave, I wouldn’t have to yell”), threatening (“You’d better stop that or else”), name-calling (“You’re stupid”; “You’re an embarrassment”), belittling (“Anyone could do better than that”; “You’re so clumsy”), rejecting (“Leave me alone!”), shaming (“You’re no good”), or comparing (“Why can’t you be as smart as your brother?”). Or a parent may communicate to the child in ways that indicate the child is hopeless (“You never …”; “You always …”). The home should be a safe, sacred place of refuge for children. But this is not the case when parents are verbally abusive.

Control the Tongue

[Church] President David O. McKay (1873–1970) spoke about the necessity of controlling one’s communication:

“He is a weak man who will curse or condemn some loved one because of a little accident. What good does it do him? He [must] develop his spirit and control that anger, control his tongue. A little thing? Trace it, and you will find that not yielding and not controlling it bring many an unhappy hour in your home.”

Stories regarding the “many unhappy hours” in homes are truly tragic.

“If I could do it all over again,” wrote a mother from Glendale, Utah, “I would commit to never raising my voice. Ironically, as a young mother, I remember hearing an older woman say that she never raised her voice to her children. I thought to myself, How impractical!

“Yelling goes way back in my family tree. Everyone yells, I thought. It’s just part of life. I had often given myself over to my emotions and expressed my anger at the top of my voice at my children. Then I became frustrated by their lack of cooperation and yelled my orders even louder at them. I have even screamed to them that I could not tolerate their yelling and quarreling any longer, not realizing that they had learned to yell from me.

“Raising my voice invited the spirit of contention into our home. Once it was there, the children learned to call each other names and say cruel things to each other. I would respond with more anger and accusations, and the negative feelings would continue to escalate.

“After yelling at my kids for the better part of 20 years, I have learned what 3 Nephi 11:29 means: ‘He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil.’ Allowing the spirit of contention to enter our home allowed darkness and depression to enter. It fostered meanness and self-centeredness, and nearly destroyed unity, love, and family relationships.”

Using demeaning, threatening words and shouting can leave indelible impressions on a child’s mind. Hurtful words can be used like a weapon to inflict injuries that are difficult to overcome. A child who is continually criticized can begin to believe the negative messages. Children who suffer repeated emotional or verbal abuse may experience depression, develop feelings of low self-worth, and have difficulty in their interpersonal relationships. All of these effects may extend into adulthood.

Preventing Verbal Abuse

Some years ago, in an effort to encourage positive communication, my family decided to discuss during family home evening ways we could improve our verbal communication with each other. We agreed to pay attention to our language and to avoid name calling and using negative labels, which we began to call “garbage-can words.” Some of those labels and words were stupid, ugly, dummy, lazy, spoiled, crybaby, and others. We all knew which labels and words were negative and hurtful. And, interestingly enough, new ones seemed to creep into our communication and had to also be thrown into the “garbage can.”

As I have counseled families throughout the years, I have used a one-page handout for parents on how to stop using words that hurt and start using words that help. Some of the words and phrases that help are: “Good job!” “You did that by yourself? I’ve never seen that done any better.” “Let’s try again.” “I’m sorry.” “Can I help?” “You always seem to figure out a way.” “You’re pretty smart!” “I didn’t know you could do that.” “Nice try.” “Great effort!” “Good work.” “Keep trying; you’ll get it.”

Whether or not you consider yourself to be a verbally abusive parent, listen carefully to the language you use with your children. Be receptive to feedback from others about your parent-child interactions. Be aware of any negative, hurtful verbal responses and reactions, including negative words, tone of voice, and overall approach to communicating with your children. When you feel tempted to engage in abusive verbal behavior, stop what you are doing and remove yourself temporarily from the situation. See the sidebar “Instead of Yelling” for more suggestions on avoiding abusive verbal behavior.

If you are finding it difficult to change your actions, seek counsel from your bishop. If further help is needed, he can refer you to a qualified therapist.

[Church] President Gordon B. Hinckley has prescribed love and respect as the most effective tool in curing abuse and other family problems:

“The prescription is simple and wonderfully effective. It is love. It is plain, simple, everyday love and respect. It is a tender plant that needs nurturing. But it is worth all of the effort we can put into it.”

On another occasion he said: “My plea—and I wish I were more eloquent in voicing it—is a plea to save the children. Too many of them walk with pain and fear, in loneliness and despair. Children need sunlight. They need happiness. They need love and nurture. They need kindness and refreshment and affection.”

Let us treat our children with “kindness and refreshment and affection,” knowing as we do so that the Lord will bless our efforts. Our relationships with our children will then be closer, and they will be farther along the road to becoming happy, well-adjusted adults.

Instead of Yelling

1. Pause and reconsider what you’re going to say. Then think of a better response—or no response at all for the time being.

2. Remember the last time you felt like yelling, and concentrate on what you did that helped you then.

3. When tempted to yell or use demeaning or threatening words, count to 20 or more before you yell.

4. Put your child, and even yourself, in a time-out chair. Just sit there and cool off for a few minutes.

5. Sing or hum a favorite hymn.

6. Call a friend to talk or to even temporarily relieve you of childcare, if necessary.

7. Go outside for a breath of fresh air. Look at the sky to get the bigger picture.

8. Write a brief list of your immediate feelings of frustration. Then write feelings you think you may still have in 10 minutes or so.

Abuse Is Not Compatible with the Spirit

“We should not lose our tempers and abuse one another. I want to say that nobody ever abused anybody else when he had the spirit of the Lord. It is always when we have some other spirit.”
President George Albert Smith (1870–1951), in Conference Report, Oct. 1950, 8.

---

Account frozen...

Two professionals went at it in Dublin last night, on the topic "God is Not Great": The Case Against Religion".

I wish I had transcripts but no luck, yet. So in the meantime, here is a report on the debate.


Enjoy!


************************


High spirits in great God debate
Donald Clarke


Christopher Hitchens and John Waters, two furiously tireless polemicists, positively thrive on spreading irritation about the place. At the Gate Theatre in Dublin last night an eager audience relished the opportunity to see the writers work their talent for vexation on one another.

The subject under discussion was the latest book by Hitchens, God is Not Great: The Case Against Religion.

The bibulous English author, a round-faced recovering Marxist who recently appalled his former comrades by supporting the Iraq War, maintains that faith distorts young minds, fosters division and inhibits scientific advance.

The bearded Waters, whose superficial resemblance to an Old Testament prophet suited the occasion nicely, has used his Irish Times column to decry the advance of “aggressive secularism” throughout the western world. His next book is to be titled Lapsed Agnostic.

The organisers of the Dublin Writers Festival, sponsor of the event, surely hoped they had the literary equivalent of the Ultimate Fighting Championship on their hands.

The stage of the theatre, decorated for the Gate’s production of Sweeney Todd, might have been specifically designed to allow the easy run-off of blood and viscera.

The debate began in civil enough fashion. Hitchens compared the Christian afterlife to a kind of celestial North Korea – endless surveillance, endless praise for the great leader – and defied the audience to construct a commendable ethical statement that could not have been devised by a person of no faith.

Waters accepted that atheists could live perfectly moral lives, but wondered if the development of secular humanism would have been possible without the ethical foundations laid down by the Christian church. “Christianity has asked questions and atheists are now breathing in the same air,” he said.

After delivering their opening statements from a raised lectern at the rear of the stage – the similarity to a pulpit was striking – the two men sat either side of Brenda Power, the moderator, and began disagreeing with one another in irritatingly reasonable fashion.

Those who had come hoping to see the two men beat each other around the head with rhetorical pickaxe handles appeared to be facing disappointment. Waters acknowledged that Hitchens’s book was worth reading. Hitchens accepted that one of Waters’s questions was worth asking.

As the debate progressed, however, the inherent intellectual arrogance one expects from a Balliol College, Oxford graduate began showing itself in Hitchens’s aspect and delivery.

“You wear the medals of your own defeat,” the Englishman snapped, referring to Waters’s reluctance to accept Catholic doctrine wholesale.

An hour into the conversation, Waters’s googlies all supposedly dispatched to the boundary, Christopher Hitchens was leaning back in his seat glancing defiantly into the audience.

“Bring it on. Bring on,” he didn’t quite say.

It was at this point that things began to turn satisfactorily nasty.

Hitchens’s attitude towards American foreign policy was always likely to cause ructions in – this being that sort of affair – a disproportionately liberal audience.

Sure enough, one of the first questions from the floor began with a gruff assertion that Hitchens had “abandoned all his cherished beliefs” and went on to wonder if he still felt himself a moral being.

Adopting the aspect you might see on a greedy diner who, equipped with pliers and poking tools, has just discovered a lobster on his plate, Hitchens peered into the gloom beyond the stage lights.

"I can’t see you," he said. "But you sound irritating. I just wonder if you are as annoying as you sound."

"That is the answer of a scoundrel," his accuser replied.

Brenda made an attempt to make something reasonable of the question, but Hitchens, who drank only water throughout, was having none of it.

“F*** off! F*** off!” he drawled at the questioner. The microphone moved elsewhere.

After a few more tense exchanges, the audience was set free to discuss whether there had been a winner.

By this writer’s reckoning, Hitchens received at least three more outbursts of spontaneous applause than did Waters.

Mind you, the pious are known for their meekness. To paraphrase a piece of Catholic sophistry from Evelyn Waugh’s Brideshead Revisited, perhaps they were all clapping spiritually.

---

Together with MF, Jeffrey and DB form a friendly triumvirate. :)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Note: Jeffrey and Dogbytes are actually good friends. They just use this message board for honing their debate skills and do not actually hold the beliefs they espouse on the boards. ;)

LOL...but wrong on one count and half correct on the other.

---

Account frozen...

Note: Jeffrey and Dogbytes are actually good friends. They just use this message board for honing their debate skills and do not actually hold the beliefs they espouse on the boards. ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.