


I use it to refer to those Christians who take a more
conservative-literalist approach to the Bible, as distinct from
"liberals".


I would use the word "Christian" (unqualified) to describe someone to
whom the above definition applied.  BTW, it applies to me.

[deletia: Joe Gaut indicates his interest in the BD disaster is from a
civil liberties issue, not an attempt to justify Koresh's beliefs
and/or practices.]

I agree with Joe about this: if some group wants to believe in
whatever god or Invisible Pink Unicorns and go off and live together
and have group sex, or no sex, or sex only for the leaders (but NOT
with children), then, as much as I might believe them to be misguided,
I think they should have the legal right.  And I hope the
investigation will start by determining whether the feds had any
*legitimate* reason for going after Koresh in the first place (before
moving on to consider the wisdom of various tactics used).

[Joe goes on to dispute the child-abuse allegations.  I'll
(provisionally) accept this, unless someone has evidence to support
the allegations?]

Actually I wasn't thinking about the (alleged) child abuse, but about
the reports that he had sex with, and fathered children by, several
women in the cult.  I agree this is not a legal matter - consenting
adults and all that - but Stephen Tice seems to be defending Koresh's
beliefs and practices from specifically *Christian* perspective, not a
civil liberties perspective.  

I think my question is not really aimed at Joe (and possibly not at
Ray Cote either, who seems to also be taking the political angle), but
at Stephen Tice.

