Must of course go to Christopher Hitchens:
I had sincerely intended to be the only scribbler in America who stayed out of this most stupid and degrading argument . . . But, once you engage for even an instant, you are drawn into a vortex of irrationality and nastiness that generates its own energy. A family lawyer appears before an American court and solemnly proposes that his client's "client" might have to spend extra time in Purgatory, or even in Hell, if the feeding-tube decision is adjudicated the wrong way. One Catholic fanatic, Patrick Buchanan, argues that federal marshals ought to burst in and preserve a corpse. Another Catholic fundamentalist, William Donahue, says that this would be unwise, but only because it might set a precedent for the rescue of living people on Death Row. Presiding from a distance is a nodding, senile pope whose church may possibly want to change the subject from its indulgence of the rape and torture of real-life children.
As someone who was also, despite my intentions, drawn into this vortex, let me say that I'm sorry to one and all for letting this happen and for whatever nastiness and irrationality may have come from my side. However, for my part I do buy into the anti-religious-fundamentalist bias of this paragraph, and even of the more vituperative concluding paragraph of the essay. I don't see why I should feel beholden to make any more gestures of comity towards the Christian fundamentalists who now control 2 of 3 branches of government and also control my political party than they are willing to make to the tiny, inconsequential minority of non-believers.*
*I know that not everyone on the "pro-tube" side of this debate was a Christian fundamentalist or used religious arguments to make their case, but the overwhelming majority were and did.