Article

Priest of the "Middle High Ground"

992l.jpg

I’m so freaking tired of all the commentaries about ‘militant atheism’ I could puke. No matter how many times we lay out the arguments, some clown is always going to pop up, holier than thou, and claim the “middle high ground.” Nothing can be known, they say, and those who think the world can be explained by science are just as fundamentalist and wrong as the religious.

Bah.

Now comes Don Rogers at the Vail Trail doing just that. His precise claim is that secularists are “more hard-headed than religious fundamentalists.” The guy looks a little too much like Chuck Norris to be calling other people hard-headed. But I’m more concerned with the wrongness behind his eyes than his appearance–which is of course a poor way to judge anyone.

Rogers’ words betray the intransigence of what I would call the militant agnostic. And he quotes the very same commentary by Tom Krattenmaker that I destroyed last week. (previous post) For such an indecisive and bull-headed agnostic, there is fierce pride in a kind of closed-minded skepticism that avoids coming to conclusions even when logic demands it. Rogers sees virtue in appearing to remain non-committal, and can’t stand that some among humanity may actually have thought things through and have some of the answers (not all).

I believe our religions — all of them — are too puny to explain the beyond. And our science is at the beginning of understanding even what can be sensed about existence, never mind what defies science. Science, after all, is a tool and not an end in itself. It’s ultimately too puny, too.

As I and many others have tried to explain, (previous post) science has never claimed to have all the answers. It is indeed a tool, and part of its gift is knowing its own limits. The same cannot be said for religion. This is the clearest and simplest of distinctions, and one of the most important we can ever make.

Books like “God is Not Great: How Religion Ruins Everything” aside, church faith is no more to blame for all the world’s ills than atheism as practiced by the world’s great mass killers, such as Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin. It’s just not that simple.

Since Hitchens provides a scathing rebuttal to this silly (and repetitive) tu quoque argument in Chapter 17 “The Case Against Secularism,” and since Rogers got the title wrong (It’s actually “How Religion Poisons Everything”) I’d wager a month’s salary that Rogers never read it.

I’d argue that religious faith has brought humanity more peace, beauty and honor than otherwise, even with all the sins committed on behalf of a church. And yes, there have been plenty.

And Don, you would be engaging in hand-waving. This premise is something else Hitchens rebuts exhaustively. So dude, you never read the book. Shut up.

Science could well still lead to our extinction if we are not careful, despite all the blessings we enjoy through its discoveries. It’s no panacea; that’s proven.

Please show me this ‘proof.’ Everything we do on a daily basis is made possible by science. Everything. Including living past age 37 (average life expectancy 150 years ago).

Secularists have no moral high ground here at all.

Morality is not the domain of science. Evolutionary psychology can roughly describe why people do what they do and how it came to be that way. But it can’t say what they should do. This is a form of the is-ought problem. Science is often falsely framed by the religious as the kind of vacuous yet totalistic overlord they’ve been used to worshiping. But to the point: If science leads to human extinction, it will be because of unbridled human appetites–and craven and spineless politicians who are afraid to tell their constituents the truth about the resource limitations of life on earth. As a result, short-term greed and the power of technology could indeed combine (with fanatic religion) to provoke a final confrontation. But is that potential to be laid at the feet of science–or poor leadership?

So what does Rogers believe?

I believe in the human qualities that compel us to question and to test and to revise our conclusions based on what we’ve learned. I also believe in the human condition that inspires us to higher purpose.

Fair enough on revising our conclusions. But could our highest purpose not be realized within ourselves? Could it not be to promote the reduction of suffering right here on earth, instead of through some conveniently nebulous “higher purpose,” or in some out-of-reach heaven?

The basic paradox of existence should make us all very humble about our beliefs — and more respectful of others.

How did nothing at all become all of this? Or if you prefer the question asked this way: Who is God’s creator?

I love how militant agnostics throw down the unknowable like some kind of gauntlet. While at the same time throwing in the presuppositional question about “God’s creator.”

I’m crying foul. We’ve got to leave the origin of the universe in the realm of the unknown. We have no choice–it will never be known! To translate Rogers’ question into actual English, he’s asking, then answering his own question: “How did the universe begin? Ahh, I really can’t imagine how, so I’m going to imagine a being called ‘god’ and assume that he did it.” If we examine his question, it’s not agnostic at all. He comes to a conclusion. He is at the very least a deist. In fact, my concept of the “circle of knowledge” makes me far more of a true agnostic than Rogers (in his current state of mind) could ever hope to be.

We’ve got a long way to go along both paths, I suspect. Somewhere out there, millennia away, they may even meet. That is, if we survive the scientists and the priests.

Spoken like a true militant agnostic.


Comments (24 comments)

Spanish Inquisitor / August 31st, 2007, 5:31 am / #1

First of all, when citing the Hitchens book, it’s “god” with a small “g”, who “poisons” everything. Clearly not a book on his bookshelf, is it? (I checked the original, and you did not misquote him). Small point, but significant.

Secondly, to a certain extent, he has a point when he says

I’d argue that religious faith has brought humanity more peace, beauty and honor

but only that far. He concludes the sentence with “than otherwise”, making a comparison that is not supportable. I think early on, religion did stabilize an uncertain, ignorant world, but in the process sowed the seeds of a different sort of ignorance, and it was only one of other options available to humanity. In those early days, which I think ended around the middle ages, but should have ended sooner, art, music, academia advanced, and it could be argued that without the stabilizing influence of the Church, it may not have. But peace is not one thing religion can lay claim to, and frankly, I think humanity could have done better in the beauty and honor departments if we had shed our reliance on religion a lot sooner.

Mana / August 31st, 2007, 7:32 am / #2

Why, oh why do people keep saying Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin practiced atheism? Hitler considered himself a Catholic, and there are numerous records (including Mein Kampf) to prove it, Pol Pot was a French-educated (dropout), murdering power monger, not for religious reason but because he was a madman and hated all western influence, and Stalin never practiced atheism, he was a closet atheist early in his life (why was he closeted, I wonder…) and is said to have returned to god later in his life when he allowed churches to reopen. These despots where just mad.
And these middle ground arguments are not just flawed they’re militant jackassism meant to make a lot of us feel like puking. Emotions aside, I think this donkey is just trying to apply what he learned in his seo class and get some hot religion traffic to his page by using as many religious key words as possible.

Dustin / August 31st, 2007, 9:24 am / #3

This article is well written, but I question the validity of insulting someone in this manner.

Sure a lot of things he says sounds ridiculous, but what is accomplished with responses like “spoken like a true militant agnostic” or “So dude. you never read the book. Shut up”

The answer is not much. You simply have two people of differing opinions preaching to their selected choirs.

The solution to solving problems is intellectual discourse, and when that fails realizing it is not possible quite yet. Your goal seems an attempt to gain coolness points.

And for the record, I’m an atheist.

BlackSun / August 31st, 2007, 9:41 am / #4

@Spanish Inquisitor

It was the use of the word “more” that I was objecting to. If he had just said “religious faith has brought humanity peace, beauty, and honor,” that statement could possibly apply in some limited circumstances as you described.

@Mana

Militant jackassism. LOL.

@Dustin

what is accomplished with responses like “spoken like a true militant agnostic” or “So dude. you never read the book. Shut up”

Don’t you think I know how to write sober prose? I took this tone intentionally and for effect. Because people like Rogers have been getting away with rhetorical murder. When you refer to a book you haven’t read, and then claim to refute its points without so much as addressing them, that’s as much of an insult to intelligent readers as saying “shut up.” In fact, I’d argue it’s a greater insult. Further, when he says things like “survive the scientists and the priests” as the summation to his article, he viciously insults all scientists, who are actually the heroes of the world. Shameful.

One of the benefits of “preaching to the choir” is giving people who already know something the courage to express it openly. Many casual readers see editorials like Don Rogers’ as perfectly legitimate expressions of opinion. They place a higher value on feelings than facts.

My position is that when people are as blatantly intellectually dishonest as Rogers is, they deserve a slap in the face (with words, of course). As a writer, he needs to learn a thing or two about the rules of argument and supporting his truth-claims. If we tolerate public lying and equivocation of this sort, then we will get more of it. That’s not the kind of world I want to live in.

Liquid Egg Product / August 31st, 2007, 3:41 pm / #5

I stumbled on your site by accident, and it’s plain to see that it will not fail to be interesting.

With regards to the issue of religious/non-religious leaders having committed atrocities, I’m not so sure that religion in and of itself is the primary issue. Abuse of power seems to transcend belief systems and is part of human nature. Religion happens to be an extraordinarily useful tool for those in power.

Mana: Even if Hitler considered himself Catholic, the methods that he used to control and justify his actions were certainly not Catholic. Certainly, he did not rule in the name of his faith. The Third Reich, from what I’m aware of, was secular, and their support of eugenic ideas in particular seems very non-religious in nature.

Michael / August 31st, 2007, 8:03 pm / #6

There are more of them of late, I think, because the Bush administration has made such a fine art and success of the Big Lie (not to mention the common lie) that people are emulating his performance. If you say “All mathematicians are philosophically threadbare” often enough, and loudly enough, a lot of people will begin to believe it, without ever bothering to experience a mathematician. That is poor commentary on our species, but our entire species may be on overload and categorically unable to think on their own.

Just a thought.

Mana / August 31st, 2007, 10:07 pm / #7

Abuse of power seems to transcend belief systems and is part of human nature. Religion happens to be an extraordinarily useful tool for those in power. Amen to that!

John B. / September 1st, 2007, 9:47 pm / #8

I guess we have to accept that if vocalizing decent is a sign of being a “militant” or an “fundamentalist” then we are going to have to embrace the labels. I’m certainly not going to let someones label of me deter me from saying what’s on my mind (and I think this is really the hidden agenda of calling us “militants”. Many folks didn’t mind knowing that some were atheists, as long as we all behaved by being afraid to say so. Now that the stigma is dissipating, they are terrified that our numbers will quickly multiply. They are correct. Open and free thinking societies have a natural tendency to move in a secular direction).

Personally, I would think “militant” atheism would be burning down churches and beating parishioners, but apparently it’s something much more innocuous. If so, OK, I’m a big, bad militant. Ooh… SCARY!! Stay indoors and lock the bibles in fireproof safes!!

Gary H Johnson Jr / September 2nd, 2007, 1:07 am / #9

The sanction of Morality has been squarely placed into the Religion bin. Ethics is the issue…not God…or god. When people spout off about militant atheists, nowadays, it is a blanket statement for anarchists, potheads, philosophers, and virtually anyone who does not fit the mainstream of one church or another. My fear is Militant Jihadi Muslims…they tend to blow up if you draw a cartoon that insults Muhammad’s Sword or write a novel that depicts the Angel Gabriel as a happenstance passenger rather than a messenger of supreme knowledge. For anyone to say that evil men like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or PolPot were militant atheists is accurate, however. Communism itself is founded on Marx’ “God is the opiate of the people” principle…so these men, whether they believed in God or not, espoused the Dogma and Dictated the mandates of Godlessness etal Marx. To fly off the handle because people call out 4 people for being militant Atheists is a waste of time…simply say – can you list 50 mass murdering Atheists in the next hour? I can name 50 mass murdering Muslims with a wave of my mousepad…through the continuum of the web. What would be more constructive is examining the realities of the governments and the situations on the ground and in the electorate which allowed these evil men to rise, prosper, murder, destroy, and continue on until the world noticed far too late… That, I think is the handle – we must build a world in which Hitler and Stalin are not able to rise without notice, and if they do – are dethrowned in short order…unfortunately NATO and the UN are not equipped with the cajones for such daring usage of REASON.

BlackSun / September 2nd, 2007, 10:35 am / #10

@Liquid Egg Product, thanks! You should check out Hitchens’ book for a discussion of the close cooperation of the Vatican and the Third Reich. They may not have been outwardly ideologically compatible, and of course it was total cynical political maneuvering for both organizations. But the most important fact is that both the Vatican and the Reich were purveyors of totalitarian systems.

@John B.

I guess we have to accept that if vocalizing decent is a sign of being a “militant” or an “fundamentalist” then we are going to have to embrace the labels.

I don’t care much about labels either. But I do think there is a P.R. problem when pundits get away with labeling atheists”fundamentalist” who are simply writing and making an argument, while like you said the other fundamentalists are committing acts of violence. I think we should call them on their equivocation.

@Gary H Johnson Jr., That’s a very good retort. I think people would have a hard time finding 5 atheists who were guilty of murderous fundamentalism–let alone 50.

unfortunately NATO and the UN are not equipped with the cajones for such daring usage of REASON.

I’m not throwing in the towel on the UN and NATO yet. They may not be ideal organizations any more than the US is an ideal democratic government. But these imperfect institutions are all we’ve got at the moment to stand against tyranny and theocracy.

As religious as the US is, I’d still take its officially secular government over 98% of the other governments in the world.

As ineffective as the UN is, I still think the world is better off for at least having a forum dedicated to peace, security, and human rights.

Smoke / September 2nd, 2007, 11:18 am / #11

A few disclosures off-the-bat. I’m agnostic. And I wouldn’t remotely identify as “militant,” but neither would I accept “wishy-washy” or unable to commit. Do I believe in God? No. Do I believe science is the last best hope of humanity? You betcha. Can science answer our most perplexing “why questions”? No. There’s a lot that’s unknowable. There it is.

Next, the comments about the language and tone of this post and personally interesting to me. On my own blog I can’t resist liberal use of f-bombs and sarcasm. I’m considering tempering those, in part simply because I think it’s more challenging and honest to make arguments without them (kind of like straight comedy is tougher than shock comedy.) But I could change my mind…fuckin’ A I could.

Lastly, sometimes I think we rise too easily to the “militant bait.” I think we’d all be better off displaying less rage–hell, even less logic–and just, well, laughing our asses off instead. As in, You believe what??? Come on, you’ve got to be KIDDING ME.

The shit people believe is just ludicrous, whether it’s people walking-on-water or flying up into heaven or throwing around lightning bolts. Let’s just laugh in their crazy faces.

BlackSun / September 2nd, 2007, 11:58 am / #12

@Smoke

Can science answer our most perplexing “why questions”? No. There’s a lot that’s unknowable.

Then we agree. But the mealy-mouthed relativism I’ve denounced in the above article does not follow from such honest agnosticism.

On my own blog I can’t resist liberal use of f-bombs and sarcasm. I’m considering tempering those, in part simply because I think it’s more challenging and honest to make arguments without them (kind of like straight comedy is tougher than shock comedy.) But I could change my mind…fuckin’ A I could.

With a blog name like Religious Bullshit, I don’t think most people expect you to temper yourself. And frankly I wouldn’t recommend it. :-)

I think we atheists also have to remember that religions have committed CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. It’s not like we’re talking about a small disagreement here. We are talking about monumental fraud and the mental slavery of billions of people, starting when they were children. We’re talking about the waste of billions of lives and minds in fantasy and delusion, opposition to education, murder of teachers and women’s rights campaigners, burning of books, and more.

In the calculus of a politician, maybe we should temper our message. But as far as the way we feel about it? I’m sorry. As long as we’re not setting off explosives in crowded churches or committing other acts of physical violence, I don’t think we have anything to apologize for.

Smoke / September 2nd, 2007, 12:24 pm / #13

Agree on virtually everything you say…and as I wrote my original response, I thought of including a few points about how real anger is legitimate given religious crimes, and–something I’m pretty passionate about–religious nuts legislating to the rest of us.

All of that said, sometimes laughing at it all pisses them off even more than trying to argue. ;) And I’ll do anything to piss them off.

Keep posting, and thanks.

Dustin / September 3rd, 2007, 2:54 am / #14

“I took this tone intentionally and for effect. Because people like Rogers have been getting away with rhetorical murder.”

Your assertion is that people need your help to figure out that a phrase like “Science could well still lead to our extinction if we are not careful” though technically true entirely misses the point?

“When you refer to a book you haven’t read, and then claim to refute its points without so much as addressing them, that’s as much of an insult to intelligent readers as saying “shut up.”

Yes, but responding to an insult with “shut up” is not the way. Be silent and make him look a fool, or say something useful.

“My position is that when people are as blatantly intellectually dishonest as Rogers is, they deserve a slap in the face (with words, of course).”

Here’s where one of us is wrong. I cannot speak for Rogers specifically but many like him believe intensely that what they are saying is true regardless of how silly it sounds.

If Rogers didn’t believe in what he was saying and was trying to get away with something, your response would have been perfect.

But if he is like others who does believe in what he says he will write off your comments as quickly as you write off his. The difference of course is that your comments are logical in nature while his are not. But if they have no effect on him, and your readers just see a lot of insults towards him whats the point?

HP / September 3rd, 2007, 4:37 am / #15

@ Gary H Johnson Jr,

No Gary, I can’t list 50 mass murdering atheist in the next hour. But I’m sure many Tibetan people can remember a lot of them. Cruelties as such have nothing to do with theists/atheists. All of us have such tendencies. Every cruelty is commited by a person, who made a choice to perform this cruelty. It may be triggered by religious, by atheist motives, by any other motive or by no motive at all: the personal choice is still there. Religious motivated murder is not worst than atheist motivated murder. Murder remains murder.

BlackSun / September 3rd, 2007, 8:26 am / #16

Dustin,

Yes, but responding to an insult with “shut up” is not the way. Be silent and make him look a fool, or say something useful.

A stylistic choice. I’ll give you that you have the right to respond differently.

Here’s where one of us is wrong. I cannot speak for Rogers specifically but many like him believe intensely that what they are saying is true regardless of how silly it sounds.

If Rogers didn’t believe in what he was saying and was trying to get away with something, your response would have been perfect.

There’s such a thing as willful ignorance. I read a couple other columns that Rogers wrote, and he’s not a complete idiot. But when someone who is clearly older than 37 gets up and makes themselves a cup of coffee with an electric coffee maker, gets in their car, drives to work, writes a column on their computer, possibly takes an antibiotic, comes home to their temperature-controlled house, climbs into their bed with fire-retardant sheets and then has the audacity to insult science? I’m sorry, he needs to be verbally slapped around. What a dolt.

But if he is like others who does believe in what he says he will write off your comments as quickly as you write off his. The difference of course is that your comments are logical in nature while his are not. But if they have no effect on him, and your readers just see a lot of insults towards him whats the point?

Frankly, I don’t expect to change his mind. My intention is to make his behavior the subject of ridicule.

BlackSun / September 3rd, 2007, 8:33 am / #17

HP,

No Gary, I can’t list 50 mass murdering atheist in the next hour. But I’m sure many Tibetan people can remember a lot of them.

The Tibetan people were not murdered by atheists, they were murdered by the devotees of a state religion. The PRC may have banned traditional relgions, but they created their own new totalitarian cult of personality behind Mao.

Read Christopher Hitchens book!

HP / September 3rd, 2007, 10:03 am / #18

Dear Sean,

I would call most Tibetan people religious people, which embrace the ideal of non-violence. The main reason why the Chinese slaughtered them, was: because they continued to practice their religion. You can call the PRC like you wish. Their goal was and still is a secular society without religion.

My point is: people – either religious or atheist – do kill other people. And Popes, Presidents, Kings, Mao’s, Hitlers and Osama Bin Ladens most of the times do not kill, but let other people do the job for them. This has to do with egoistic power struggle and not with whether one is religious or not.

BlackSun / September 3rd, 2007, 10:22 am / #19

HP,

My patience for this discussion wears very thin. Religions are totalitarian, whether non-violent or not. By definition, the struggle between China and Tibet is an ideological one based on the worship of what amounts essentially to differing gods.

Their goal was and still is a secular society without religion.

Their goal is to remain in power, and they have the need to sublimate traditional religion in favor of their new Maoist state-religion. Where they can’t sublimate it, they co-opt and control it is as in the case of Tibet.

I’m not going to continue to discuss this with you as I already know your position. It’s why I blocked your comments in the past. The goal of this site is to advocate for a humanistic society, free from both the trappings of traditional religion and the ideological totalitarianism of a monolithic political state.

As I said before, read Hitchens’ book. If you still insist on equating Stalin, Mao and Hitler to atheism, then you have nothing of value to contribute to the discussion. By the way, I just added a new policy on comments: no more of these types of these fallacious claims here. In attorney language, this question has been “asked and answered.” Let’s keep this discussion intelligent and stop rehashing old arguments, OK?

Gary H Johnson Jr / September 3rd, 2007, 9:19 pm / #20

The point I was making was rhetorical guys – I didn’t expect you to go find 50 guys – I am sure there are…the thing is, though, Hitler, Mao, Stalin…these guys are labels now – not human – smearinginsults – evil incarnate. People look for their demons in numerous ways, guises, forms and visions… Some group them into one source – a devil…others find they spawn from another source – a God. Objective Reality vs. Subjective Reality…A is A or is it a reflection of the ultimate A…Aristotle vs. Plato…Rand vs. Kant. The truth is, the world is objectively subjective – so long as man defines it. It will be here when I am Gone, it was here before I came, but while I was here, this is how I see it. So, subjectively, in this objective world, what is it about America that is allowing Hitler and Stalin to rise again? Open Borders? The One World Government Freakonomics of the UN?

Random Capitalist slam – If you do not see Hillary Clinton as a Chavez to be…you will remember the moment you read this post when you realize the truth of it too late. She claims Populism’s mantle as does Chavez. So, what allows Hitler to rise? Democrats and independents vote for Socialist agendas and find out that when you add a socialist agenda to a Politician in a huge quagmire of special interest bureacracy…what you end up with is a mathematical imperative – Hitler. The Nazi party was the National Socialist Party, people. Hillary is a communist…I mean a Social Democrat…who seeks the populist HillaryCare…hmmm…welcome Illegals, let us punish the businesses that drew you here and bless you for working for these evil corporate megaliths, let us punish the middle class for oppressing your people and repressing these immigrants by daring to seek the executive branch’s enforcement of an unjust law.

The absurdity level of our current situation is one of multiplicative chaos. To make it any lighter than that would not begin to unravel the mystery that Man has devised for his own future chains.

BlackSun / September 4th, 2007, 10:44 am / #21

If you do not see Hillary Clinton as a Chavez to be…you will remember the moment you read this post when you realize the truth of it too late. She claims Populism’s mantle as does Chavez

I think this is a real stretch, Gary.

I also don’t understand your problems with immigration. As I already mentioned, immigrants do jobs Americans don’t want, and their employers effectively pay tax on the undeclared money that’s paid to illegals. The whole immigration issue is populist xenophobia at its worst. Globalization is unstoppable.

But anyway, this discussion is getting far afield from the subject of the post which was militant agnosticism.

Gary H Johnson Jr / September 4th, 2007, 11:23 am / #22

Blacksun,

Xenophobia? Rome fell do to unchecked infiltration. I do not see my problems as with immigration – what I have a problem with is infiltration. Think about it like this – we have roughly 5% unemployment. Roughly 12 to 15 million people without jobs in America. How many illegals are here working illegally again? According to the news 12 million – according to others – upwards of 35 to 40 million. Do we not support our unemployed citizens with a welfare system that is crumbling? Now we are paying for healthcare for non-citizens and hospitals are closing at record rates…insurance is through the roof in cost. Wages are flat. Prices are rising. We are setting ourselves up for a fall. Not to mention, if we are in a war on terrorism, why would we not stop the influx and at least force militants to work to get through a loophole in order to attack, rather than allowing them to traipse across a fence with total impunity.

You are right, however. It is a stretch in the current stream of understanding regarding the issue that Hillary Clinton is a populist on the line of Chavez…You are also right that these posts have gone far a-field. If globalization is unstoppable, should we not be working to provide this leviathan checks and balances like our founding fathers did?

Ask yourself this question – what if Aztlan decides to rise in a Hezbollah-styled resistance movement spearheaded by the MS-13 and 18th Street Gangs under the umbrella of say a “Promised Bolivarian Savior” that Chavez props up as a “Bolivarian Resistance Force” with NGO funding and charitable contributions through organizations like MECHA and La Raza? This is a stretch too…or is it? What if they coordinate these efforts with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah in a “Solidarity Portal” towards Globalization and Freedom, whose only possible success would come from the eradication of the United States as an Entity? – Send that to Freakonomics.

The reason I consider these plausible is simple…you said it – Xenophobia. We are trapped by our civilization. We have civilized ourselves to death – if you build a wall – it is related to Berlin – if you enforce a law – you are a racist. This is exactly why these scenarios are possible, plausible and may one day rise like a phoenix from the ashes.

My question on immigration is this – why are the illegal immigrants held up as people with the American Dream, while those who employ them are considered criminal? Both commit illegal acts – one is maintaining a business that employs many people and provides for multiple families…one is keeping an American on the dole by breaking and entering. Yet the one that is vilified is the business owner – why? Because you can sue him or get a kickback bribe for letting him off with a warning. What type of message does this send to people who want to start a business?

Liquid Egg Product / September 5th, 2007, 4:35 am / #23

@Blacksun: Sorry for an additional OT post, but had to respond to Gary.

@Gary H Johnson Jr: It’s not healthy to have 0% unemployment. Check what’s going on in Montana.

Challenge Religion - Today’s Top Blog Posts on Atheism - Powered by SocialRank / October 1st, 2007, 3:05 am / #24

[…] BlackSun : Priest of the “Middle High Ground” […]

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.