RSS/XML |
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
|
Essays |
Main Page |
Disclaimer |
|
Norm Geras has an outstanding blog. An atheist, Marxist professor at the University of Manchester, he has strongly supported the liberation of Iraq and the toppling of Saddam’s regime, usually to the dismay of his fellow travelers. He also has been profiling bloggers for a few years and profiled me on Dec. 31, 2004.
Today Norm emailed me to call my attention to an online debate he’s had with his friend an fellow atheist Ophelia (no last name given) in which they argue about the merits, if any, of religion. Ophelia argues that whatever good may be exhibited by relious people or institutions is overwhelmed by the bad.
The reason I… am not much inclined to talk about ‘the good in religion’ is because it comes at a price, and the price is too high. The good is inseparable from that price, you can’t get the good without the price, so if you think the good is not worth the price - then for you it is not a good. It can’t be a good because it’s so tangled up with the price - with the bad.
It’s not as if you can make two lists, good, bad, and judge each in isolation. Because the basic problem with religion, the thing that makes people like me adopt a fighting stance, is that it’s not true. That’s not just some minor or detachable problem that one can compartmentalize or bracket - it’s right smack in the middle.
It’s a corruption, a surrender, an abdication, and we don’t make it because - we don’t want to endorse a lie. That’s why.
But this is a silly proposition as Norm recognizes. Ophelia objects to religion because - she claims - it’s not true. But she simply makes a propositional claim that amounts to nother but her own opinion of what is true and what it not. There is no reason whatsoever that I should accept her standards of truth. She’s angry, she admits, that some people believe things she does not. Well, phhtt to her. So what? It might profit her to examine just why billions of people have throughout history affirmed various religious truths, but that would doubtless force her to admit that therer are smart people who don’t agree with her, which I imagine Ophemlia would find psychologically untenable.
In response, Norm says,
Here I am, lifelong atheist, going out to bat for religion once again - actually, not for religion, since I do not think there are valid grounds for religious belief, but against unbalanced forms of rejection of all that religion stands for and some of the values it may embody for its adherents. …
[Ophelia’s] move is artificial and arbitrary. You can’t show that religion is all bad simply by focusing on what is bad about it.
Here is a simple, and for me decisive, example. In Warsaw in 1943, a Polish Catholic risks her life to save an endangered Jew. She does so because she has been taught from childhood that all people are the children of God and it is a sin to take innocent life. How, in the face of that - which has happened plenty, and in many other historical variants as well - can one say there has been no good in religion, or that this good is merely apparent because of what it is mixed together with? I could give more than this, but it is enough. Just two things: that religious believers have often been motivated by their beliefs to act in beneficent, caring, selfless, heroic ways; and that there are universalist variants of religious belief which, in historical context, have marked a significant progress for humankind - that is quite enough empirically, against the notion that the bad in religion undoes the good.
Now, I agree with Norm’s argument, as far as it goes. He claims, successfully I think, that Ophelia’s argument doesn’t hold up, that bad practice of religion overwhelms the good. He continues,
Someone in Ophelia’s comments box - Kate - writes in this regard:
[T]he ‘good’ usually ascribed to religion is readily available outside of religion, while the ‘bad’ of religion is something that can only take place when large numbers of people are convinced that abandoning reason and abdicating personal responsibility is a virtue.
But this obviously fails.
Yeah, it fails, darn right. It fails not least because it’s pure hogwash. I readily admit that religionists of various tripes have done an awful lot of bad, some of them Christian and some of them not. But why do Norm’s interlocutors focus so much on the bad and so little on the good? Maybe it’s because atheism has never yielded any good, certainly not any good comparable to that of religion.
At the bottom of the right-hand column of my site is an ad for United Methodist Committee on Relief’s drive to help the victims of Katrina. UMCOR did the same for the victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami of late December 2004. The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, Southern Baptists, you name it and those religious people pitched in to help.
And the atheists’ coordinated effort to help stricken people? Did we miss it somehow? Nope, there wasn’t any.
In my city there is a Baptist Hospital (in which I was born, actually) and a St. Thomas Hospital, founded and supported by the Roman Catholic Church. And the Atheist Hospital is where? Right: there ain’t one.
There are countless examples of people of religious faith joining together and being deeply involved in making better the lives of human beings around the world. Before atheists scoff at us perhaps they’d like to ponder and explain why they don’t.
My personal opinion is that the heart of every atheist is filled with the fear, indeed the deep suspicion, that they are wrong.
Comments policy
16 queries. 0.917 seconds
January 25th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
The problem with their debate seems to be an underlying assumption that when it comes to religion, we necessarily have to take the good with the bad. Anyone claiming that religion has done more bad than good in the world is obviously not paying attention, or they have a much wider perspective on the last few millenia of history than I could ever hope for.
It’s obvious that a religious framework provides an excellent moral framework that is often used towards compassionate ends. But religion also has failings that lead it towards despicable ends as well (in my opinion these have more to do with the convenient avenue of deviation from reason/rationality to mysticism/faith, but that’s a whole other argument). But the proportion of good to bad is really missing the point — it’s a false dichotomy: that either we have religion, and a positive moral framework, or we don’t have religion, and we lose it.
In my opinion, the good of a religious moral code can be extricated from the things about religion that we (atheists/agnostics) may consider “bad” (say, the irrational and faith-based belief in a God). In fact, I’d venture to say it happens more often than you may be willing to admit, given your examples:
This is a little silly. Religious organizations found charitable organizations to proselytize (in varying degrees) as often as they do because they are taking, say, the Christian notion of charity to heart (token example: the union rescue mission for the homeless). In these situations, the visibility of the religious affiliation is important in order to drive home the association and, ideally, the potential conversion — hence the references to the religion in the charity name, and the liberal use of religions imagery and symbols.
Atheists or agnostics don’t have a goal of proselytization or evangelization, so you’re not going to see an “Atheist Hospital”, or an “Atheist homeless shelter”, you’re just going to see “Hospitals”, or “homeless shelter”, and this is the way it ought to be — religion or belief in a God should not be a precondition for compassion towards our fellow man, nor should it be muddled with religious evangelization.
And if you’re going to honestly claim there are no non-religious-affiliated organizations of charity (or even more to the point: that there are no atheists working for charities despite the fact that they are religious-based), well, good luck with that.
January 25th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
[…] ered out quickly, while I had a few minutes here at lunch, to Donald Sensing’s post, “Atheists Arguing”, which I also posted there, but it hasn’ […]
January 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
It must be remebered that most of the truly gruesome of the mass-murderers of the past century themselves athiests.
Stalin, and his great purges of the 1930s, an athiest.
Chairman Mao, and his Cultural Revolution that killed up to 70 million of his countrymen, an athiest.
Pol Pot, who killed, I believe, 1 in 5 of his fellow Cambodians in his Killing Fields, an athiest.
And maybe Hitler, who may or may not have been an athiest (I honestly do not know what he called himself) but his Holocaust was not driven by any standard religious belief.
January 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
TO: Donald Sensing
RE: Target!
“Maybe it’s because atheism has never yielded any good, certainly not any good comparable to that of religion.” — Donald Sensing
Fire for effect!
This is true. I don’t recall hearing very much about any atheist organization that has done much good for any group of people in dire distress as a result of disaster. Rwanada? Kosovo? Indian Ocean Tsunami? Hurricane Katrina?
Nada!
Maybe they need to get their PR act together. But then again, I suspect that most atheists have anarchist tendancies. Therefore organization is, if you’ll pardon the expression, anathema.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Atheist: Hoping to God, He doesn’t exist. — Newsboys, Truth Be Known]
January 25th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
The cynic in me suggests that the atheists’ lack of a coordinated effort comes from the fact that the religious have long, well-established structure that facilitate group action, buttressed by meetings on a regular, often-weekly basis, while atheists often tend to be fragmented, and may easily move their charitable giving toward non-atheist groups, like the United Way.
Note, though, that the dialogue you quote is between two atheists. Norm, as you point out, defends religion, and the relgious, notwithstanding his views that religious belief is false. Yet you choose to concentrate on those like Ophelia. Atheists, like members of various religions, come in different stripes.
And if I wanted to be an atheist and a jerk, I’d say that comments like these are why some atheists regard the religious as either deluded, unable to face the world, or hypocrites looking for some imprimatur of goodness. It’s not what I believe, but I’m just saying…
I’ve read your blog for several years, Rev. Sensing, and wouldn’t have done that if I wasn’t impressed by the quality of your thought and writing. I hope this post wss written in anger, since it does not live up to your normal high standards.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
Not that I want to defend atheism in any way (I’d have to abandon all reason to make the attempt), but I think that the answer to “where is the atheist _____” is “wherever taxpayer money has been spent on these things”. Christians, by and large, work first through the church; atheists, by and large, work first though government.
January 25th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Athiests are deeply involved in making better the lives of human beings around the world. It’s just that we don’t use our charity as a bludgeon to proselytize. So when I, an athiest, donate my time and money last year to the Red Cross, Amnesty International, the YMCA and Habitat for Humanity I do it just to help, not to convert.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
“My personal opinion is that the heart of every atheist is filled with the fear, indeed the deep suspicion, that they are wrong”.
Funny, I often have the same thought about all those evangelists I see on TV. It seems to me that would they occasionally wake up in the middle of the night to the stark realization that all they expound from their pulpits is complete rot.
January 25th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
the atheists’ coordinated effort to help stricken people is the government. of course, they want to tax the heck out of other people to pay for their expressions of aid, and they fail to recognize the goodness of voluntary, private giving.
January 25th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
In concentrating on all the bad of religion, Ophelia, like so many other left-wing-nuts, completely ignores all of the evil perpetrated in the name of atheism. Just to hit the low points, we have 11,000,000 dead in the Holocaust, 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 in the Soviet Union, and 2,000,000 dead in Cambodia (out of a population of 9,000,000).
Not only that, but of all the complaints against religion, most of them can be directly applied to atheistic regimes as well. Looking at human rights in the current middle east and the former Soviet Union, for instance, we don’t see too much difference.
People like Ophelia are anti-Christian, sometimes generally anti-religious. What they ignore speaks volumes more than what they gripe about.
January 25th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
TO: Tankanahana
RE: Living In Fear
“It seems to me that would they [tele-evangalists] occasionally wake up in the middle of the night to the stark realization that all they expound from their pulpits is complete rot.” — Tankanahana
They might. Especially the dishonest ones. And we can all cite examples of their ilk.
The point here being a matter of ‘confidence’. People can have confidence in themselves, but that’s hardly likely to be much help against the eternal darkness at the end of this venue.
People who are angry, as far as I’ve noticed, tend to be driven by fear. And, I think I’ve seen more anger expressed by the atheists, per capita, than from the REAL christians. Why is that? Well, I’m not trying for a doctorate of psychology or divinity, but I suspect someone could make a good doctoral thesis looking into that idea.
Back on the fear thing, as some wag said, “Perfect love drives out fear.” That’s what christians, the real ones, are trying to do. Learning to love better. That’s kind of difficult at times, considering all the interesting things that we keep hearing about ourselves.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Neighbor: One we are required to love, but does his utmost to make us disobedient. — Ambrose Beirce, The Devil’s Dictionary]
January 25th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
TO: Chris Wage
RE: Failings….
“But religion also has failings that lead it towards despicable ends as well (in my opinion these have more to do with the convenient avenue of deviation from reason/rationality to mysticism/faith, but that’s a whole other argument).”" — Chris Wage
…nothing more the faaaaaailiiings.
Indeed, everything that humans get involved with they tend to have problems….eventually. It’s part of the human condition.
Good organizations—government, social, political, charitable, religious—they all tend to go south when the wrong people get into control of them.
RE: It’s the Dichotomy
“But the proportion of good to bad is really missing the point—it’s a false dichotomy: that either we have religion, and a positive moral framework, or we don’t have religion, and we lose it.” — Chris Wage
Actually, without a good moral framework you do lose.
And from whence will that good moral framework come from?
Whose idea of “good” will we adopt?
Mao?
Stalin?
Hitler?
Pol Pot?
Michael Moore?
Atheists all.
And why?
People, especially those in power, tend to abuse that power. This is, in my opinion, because many of them feel there is no ‘governor’ on their conduct. No outside ‘power’ that could hold them to account, if they don’t accept there is one…in their heart of hearts.
We’ve seen it all to often in the past. Just look at the list of names I’ve mentioned above and reflect.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 26th, 2006 at 10:15 am
To me, the most interesting aspect of discussing faith with atheists is their refusal to see that all thinking is rooted in faith of some sort. Not “blind faith” (fideism, which the Christian church has always rejected), but unverifiable, unfalsifiable first principles, whose validity we can test only obliquely if at all; they certainly can’t be tested scientifically.
Most atheists seem still to subscribe to logical positivism, oblivious to the fact that it fails to meet its own criteria for meaning.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Please keep deleting my comments, dude. It shows how open minded you really are.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
One thing frequently overlooked by the anti-religion crowd is the constraining effect of a holy book and a long tradition.
Most people seem to have a need to Believe (I’m one of the odd ones out, as Geras appears to be). If they place their belief in an institution with a written set of rules, and a centuries-old tradition of interpreting those rules, then there’s a limit to how far a leader can stretch the Book, before the followers start asking why the new meaning has suddenly appeared after all these centuries. (A clever leader can obviously dodge this by claiming that the original meaning has been forgotten, or intentionally hidden, but the “it was good enough for Grandpa” factor will still arise.)
If the belief is directed to a brand-new mass movement, however, there are no constraints on what the Leader can proclaim. This has nothing to do with the existence of, nor belief in, any particular deity, but is simply a function of the lack of cultural roots and traditions.
The power of a leader is limited by his followers. If they put their faith in the Leader, or in the State, then the leader’s power in unconstrained. If, instead, they put their faith in some longstanding institution which is independent of Leader and State, then the power they’ll allow the leader will be limited.
[OK, so this isn’t entirely coherent. Someday I’ll think it through, and write up a carefully-edited version.]
January 26th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Despite all of what is, and will be, said on this topic truly it is all a matter of belief.
I am an atheist. For me that means;
First and foremost being totally and irrevocably responsible for my actions. There is no “forgiveness” other than that given by the person I might wrong. That I must face in everything I do.
Second how I guide my life is my responsibility. There is no “supreme being” to whom I can plead for aid, assistance or guidance. Whatever I do must come from my head, my hands, and my heart.
Finally, I must distinguish between right and wrong action. I must judge that at all times in relation to my own actions as well as the actions of others that affect me.
Why does that cause so much bebotheration? Strikes me that those who are continually trying to justify their beliefs (whether atheist or not) must be motivated by some form of insecurity. Is that true? No? Then why (whether Christian or not) is it necessary to so defend those beliefs so vehemenently, at such length, and so continuously?
My beliefs might be wrong. I acknowledge that. If so, I promise to do my utmost to return after my death to tell you all the truth.
January 26th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
“burrito,” the reasons I deleted your previous comment are
1. there was no evident connection between what you wrote and this post. Irrelevancy to the post concerned is not a sure bet for your comment to make it past moderation.
2. your post made no sense and was so poorly written that even after three attempts to understand it, I couldn’t. So to the bit bucket it went.
If you don’t like my sometimes subjective criteria for moderating comments, then don’t leave any. Makes no difference to me. I’m paying for the bandwidth for your comments and am under no obligation to host any comments at all. Which ones I approve is entirely my sovereign determination.
January 26th, 2006 at 3:21 pm
Hey, your site, your rules. Can’t make it much simpler, though I respect your opinion and I know you’re no dummy. Athiests and Evangelicals are the SAME THING. No one has any idea what happens when we die, and anyone who says they do is just being daft. Therefore, saying you know there is a sovereign god, or saying you know there isn’t one, and subsequently basing your actions on either assumption, is the same thing as your opposite. (i.e. You vs. Athiests.)
January 26th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
Ah, the “true believer” mentality…it can be very dangerous, at either end of the spectrum.
January 26th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
TO: burrito
RE: Deleted Comments
“Please keep deleting my comments, dude. It shows how open minded you really are.” — burrito
He deletes mine too. Especially when they’re off-topic or include words that he does not approve of; words like @!#$#, )#($#(*(#) and #$(*#@()@*$-#*$(@&#$&$(#*@$&(@*#&$(*@&!!!!
Just learn what the rules of engagement are and you should be okay.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 27th, 2006 at 11:35 am
There have always been such things as nominal or liberal Christians - bad exponents of the Christian faith. That is their failing, not the failing of the faith.
The real issue is one of ‘worldview’. Here’s the rub. Everyone of us has one whether we call it religious or not. The question then comes which worldview, religious or otherwise, has delivered the most good in the world?
It has to be the Judeo-Christian worldview - hands-down. It has sponsored the scientific and medical endeavour, all Western legal codes, education for all you name it.
What has atheism deliverded? Usually deadhead arguments.
January 27th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
The idea that atheists don’t care and don’t contribute is ludicrious (sp?). See the following links. The main reason you don’t see the big name charities done in the name of atheism is because of numbers. We’re still a minority and let’s face it, if we had a big name charity or big name hospitals, we probably wouldn’t call it Atheist Hospital or some such.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2005/09/01/call_to_action_call_to_help
http://www.atheists.org/ftpfiles/Press_Releases/20050903.pdf
http://www.randi.org/jr/200509/090205alley.html#2
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=press&page=pr_9_07_05
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=SHARE
You guys really missed the boat on this one.
January 27th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I don’t know who originally said this, but it’s a quote that keeps coming back to me:
“If God does not exist, nothing matters; if God does exist, nothing else matters.”
January 27th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Read what the founders of this nation had to say about organized religion. If you religionists can stand it. Then read some more history regarding what’s been done to human beings—people just like you—in the name of organized religion. Why is it that Christians, Jews and Muslims, all of whom recognize the same God, have spent centuries butchering each other? What is it with you people? If you’re a Christian, you have centuries of barbarism in the name of your faith to deal with. You Jews and Muslims have the same problem. When have any of you ever apologized to any of your fellow human beings?
You are all frauds.
There may very well be a God, but your religions are not the way to him/her. In fact, they are the single greatest obstacle to us ever finding this elusive God. Organized religion is ruining the world.
January 28th, 2006 at 5:00 am
TO: Scott M.
RE: As I Was Saying
“The main reason you don’t see the big name charities done in the name of atheism is because of numbers.” — Scott M.
They’ve got serious issues with getting organized and/or their PR.
I’ve seen these claims of yours and whatiznames (above) before. And sure, there are people among the atheists who do contribute. But, dollars to donuts, they don’t do nearly as much as religious people do.
Or can you cite a reliable study that shows otherwise?
How many tons of medical supplies and food did atheists send as aid for the refugees of the Rawanda massacre of ‘94? How many doctors?
Then compare that to what 700 Club sent.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 28th, 2006 at 5:11 am
TO: burrito
RE: There IS a Difference
“Therefore, saying you know there is a sovereign god, or saying you know there isn’t one, and subsequently basing your actions on either assumption, is the same thing as your opposite. (i.e. You vs. Athiests.)” — burrito
Did you know your father? Not being trite or offensive, but asking a simple question.
I knew my Father. I talked with him and he with me. I KNEW he existed because of such talks and the many times he helped me when I needed help. Especially when I asked for it.
It’s pretty much the same between me and God. I’ve talked with Him and He has talked with me. I’ve received all kinds of help. Many times even unasked for. But on several occasions, when I was in dire need of help and asked for it, He’s provided it.
The only difference between my earthly father and Him is that I have not seen him, physically.
So, I ask you again, did you know your father? Did you talk with him? Did he help you? Therefore do you doubt his existence?
Why should I doubt my heavenly Father’s existence, when He’s done all the things my earthly Father has done?
Just because other people have not had the benefit of knowing their Father as I have known Him doesn’t mean He isn’t there. It’s more likely that they are in denial for some reason. And, as far as I’ve noticed, the usual reason is an overweened sense of pride.
And more is the pity, because their lives would most likely be so much more interesting and satisfying than they probably are now if they would only pay better attention to ‘family values’.
Hope that helps….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 28th, 2006 at 5:27 am
TO: Probligo
RE: The Many Thinks of an Athiest
“First and foremost being totally and irrevocably responsible for my actions.” — Probligo
Yes, you ARE ‘responsible’ for your actions, whether you accept God exists or not. From the christian perspective, we call it ‘free will’.
“There is no “forgiveness” other than that given by the person I might wrong. That I must face in everything I do.” — Probligo
Yes again. You must face ‘forgiveness’. Here and later as well. The real challenge is are YOU willing to ask for it for wronging someone else? Even of God? Even when you come to realize He DOES exist? Or is there something of an issue with pride that might intefere?
“Second how I guide my life is my responsibility. There is no “supreme being” to whom I can plead for aid, assistance or guidance. Whatever I do must come from my head, my hands, and my heart.” — Probligo
Yes. As we agreed above, you are responsible. However, as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, just because YOU don’t accept God’s existence doesn’t mean He isn’t there. And it’s more the pity that you deny yourself the succor. I’ve benefited from it on numerous occasions. Even unto saving my life, which was just about to be snuffed out by an 18-wheeler in a tangle at interstate speeds.
“Finally, I must distinguish between right and wrong action. I must judge that at all times in relation to my own actions as well as the actions of others that affect me.” — Probligo
You and every other atheist. So who’s book of rules do YOU follow? Your own? And what if there is a significant disagreement with some other atheist’s ‘book of rules’? Say, he believes in human sacrifice? It’s been known to happen…. Or do YOU believe in human sacrifice?
The bottom line is that despite your denial of God existence, doesn’t mean He isn’t there.
A blind man born and raised in a cave can deny the existence of the Sun, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is there.
Remember, up until they experienced it for themselves, or heard reports from people they actually trusted, most europeans thought the world was FLAT.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 28th, 2006 at 10:10 am
TO: retired army guy
RE: Could You Please…
“Read what the founders of this nation had to say about organized religion. If you religionists can stand it.” — retired army guy
…provide some reference titles?
Those guys wrote a LOT. And my reading list is already rather full. If people paid me to read, I’d do it all the time, but I do have to make something of a living. Therefore, I need to be a tad more selective.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
January 28th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Stalin was not a declared atheist, but he was a sociopath. He was not the product of an atheist upbringing, rather, he was raised an orthodox christian and a product of a seminary education. He was supportive of the church when it suited him to be supportive, and attacked it when it suited him to do so.
http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/nelson-atheism_communism.php
Hitler was certainly not an atheist. He referred to himself as a christian, wrote about christ, and led a nation of christians in a pogrom of non-christians. People like to say that Hitler was an atheist, but he wasn’t.
And Mao was not a declared atheist either.
Basically, the canard that the great killings of the last century were committed by atheistic leaders is a pure propaganda.
January 28th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Stalin was the chief executive of a political ideology that was officially atheist. To declare that this somehow was not a declaration of atheism on Stalin’s part is simply silly.
Hitler was not atheist, but he was not Christian nor did he describe himself as such. He did compare himself to Christ in that he conceived of himself as a word-historical figure of at least equal importance. Hitler was in fact an occultic pagan and assigned one of the main missions of the SS to suppress, often lethally, the Christian churches in conquered countries. SS officers related in detail after the war that they clearly understood that the destruction of European Christianity was as much a goal of Hitlerism as the destruction of Jewry; it would just have to be done later. The History Channel, among others, has covered this is detail with on-camera interviews of former SS officers.
As for Mao - same reply as Stalin.
As the siteowner, I claim the privilege of the last word and am closing comments on this post.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
A Dim Among the Brights
I have learned through experience over the years that it avails one very, very little to get in arguments with Chomskyists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Objectivists, vegans, postmodernists, Maoists, Scientologists, LaRouchies, Deadheads, Foucault dependents,…
January 31st, 2006 at 8:11 am
[…] #8230;. (christianity.ca) WHEN MOZART Stunned Rome; God at the Pub …. (zenit.org) ATHIESTS ARGUING, by Donald Sensing; “Having already discussed atheists […]