text: I wholeheartedly agree with Jim Hamstra's observations, Erv. You ("we") create men in order to fit  views with which "we" disagree into a Procrustean bed that bears little resemblance to reality. "Our" crude caricature the position of Zinke make analysis and intelligent discussion quite futile. "We" don't even really seem to understand the ideals underlying the Catholic Inquisition, which included protection from mobs which had no regard for due process or evidentiary standards. Despite its excesses, the Inquisition was probably an advancement over the ad hoc justice being meted out by medieval religious zealots. 
  
  If "we" want to engage readers on a thoughtful level, "we" should articulate the adverse position in a manner with which the proponent of that position would be comfortable. Tell us what Zinke actually said rather than how "we" interpret it; tell us what the actual IBMTE says. Only then can "we" intelligently discuss reasonable inferences which can be drawn therefrom.