Julian Bradley wrote:
> At 15:29 04/02/2007, you wrote:
>> Julian Bradley wrote:
>> > Following this led as Google hit number 1 to:
>> >
>> > http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1142625,00.html
>> >
>> > This seems to give an incredibly sensible and balanced report which
>> > doesn't mention anywhere "pretendy-reformed" or political issues
>> > _except_ for the assumed legal separation of church and state in
>> the US.
>>
>> Read the judgement in the case.
>
> The judgement is 139 pages.
>
> I've read part (before your email, because of interest). If you would
> care to give even a general guide to which part of the judgement I'd
> be happy to look in more detail.
>
> Julian
Just the discussion of the inanity of the argument. I've only read it
via secondary source.
|