Questionable Motives

April 16, 2011

Why is mainstream moderate religious belief poisonous (updated)?

From a previous thread come these comments:

From misunderstoodranter:

“I am not an atheist because ‘other’ people are atheists – I am an atheist because I decided I was.”

From Zero1Ghost comes this reply:

“this implies that believers are theists because they are engaged in group think. i think this notion is partially true. they are afraid not to believe in God yet they live their lives like there isn’t one and the “church” has no impact on their lives aside from where they get married, baptize their children, and where their funeral is held.”

This is a very typical characterization of the mainstream religious believer from those theists who do not see what pernicious and ongoing effect the tireless promotion of religious ideology has on their society… motivated solely by religious ideology. These same theists tend to individualize religious belief as if it were a simple choice made only on the personal level so take any criticism about religion per se as inconsequential and often misguided. From this attribution, these theists then generally fail to account for how their own preferences for empowering their personal religious beliefs in any public way support the insertion of religious ideology into the lives and business of everyone else. This is a purposeful disconnect done with the intention of deflecting criticism from the issue of religious motivation to an issue of individual actions that may or may not be considered misguided. In this way, these theists never have to deal with the growing problem religious ideology brings to the whole population as they stand idly by while this happens… but are sure to call atheists and others who complain too loudly names. Forget that these same theists offer their tacit support of the inserted religious ideology into the public domain while deflecting criticism to be too ‘militant’ and ‘strident’ and ‘fundamentalist’ to be accurate. No siree: complainers of religious insertion into the public domain are just as extreme as those other religious folk. And you don’t want to be one of those people! You’re too reasonable to be such an extremist. And yet the religiously motivated intrusion continues unabated seeking preferential treatment by means of law.

In the United States, for example, I wonder if most religious believers appreciate just how common, conniving, and downright underhanded are those who attempt to cross the state/church wall of separation to insert theology where it doesn’t belong: specifically in science class. I have trouble finding anyone who supports this insertion directly, who supports those who work against the First Amendment; instead I am overwhelmed by those who pretend such insertions are only attempted by religious extremists and fundamentalists and so we can safely trust governments to withstand their misguided assaults. They are wrong.

So let’s consider the facts: in 2011 we have seven states considering nine bills to do just this.

The National Center for Science Education offers us what they call the Antievolution Legislative Scorecard here. It lists each bill and quotes the bill’s aims. This is creationism in action. This is religious ideology actively being recruited to achieve a specific outcome. Its motivation is to undermine the teaching of evolution as if there were some other legitimate science theories kicking about in biology when there are none. This is pure religious belief common to most religious believers who assume the role of creator somewhere in humanity’s history masquerading as some kind of alternative science. And every year creationism rears its ugly little head and people work tirelessly to alter science textbooks, alter school curriculum, alter education legislation with one aim in mind: replace real science with religious belief in the public domain… or at least make room for religious beliefs about creationism in the curriculum. So can we blame only religious extremists? Well, it is not being carried out by religious extremists. It is not being carried out by fundamentalists. It is being done by politicians who stand to gain public favour by undermining the teaching of science in the name of religious belief.

There’s the rub.

It is the wider public made up of religious moderates and liberals, apologists and accommodationists, who are to blame for this travesty… including the NCSE itself that states “[t]he Bible is a record of one particular people’s developing moral relationship with God, and enshrines timeless ideals about the integrity of creation […]! Without the support of so many religious accommodationist of all stripes- tacit or actual – no politician would dare undermine the First and expect to curry public favour. For that to happen, the mainstream must accept the promotion of religious ideology in the public domain as legitimate.  And that’s why every religious believer must be challenged who dares to suggest that their religious beliefs beyond the merely personal are either innocuous or good. They’re not. They are just as likely to be poisonous.



  1. The problem I have with having religious beliefs foisted on the general public, is that it is simply bullying, and bullying, in all its manifestations, is wrong. Under no circumstances should religious beliefs be allowed to infect the public discourse.

    Comment by Davey — April 17, 2011 @ 4:10 pm | Reply

  2. Thanks, Davey, for stopping by and being brave enough to comment.

    Just a note: I wonder how many billions in lost tax revenue (like this one) can be linked to specialized exemptions and exempted expenditures for religious organizations?

    Comment by tildeb — April 17, 2011 @ 7:31 pm | Reply

  3. Q: Why is mainstream moderate religious belief poisonous?
    A: it’s not.

    i, like you, stand against creationism and fight hard against it. i am fighting from the inside (with many professors from local colleges mind you) while you’re standing outside on your soapbox. which do you think will work better?

    Comment by zero1ghost — April 21, 2011 @ 2:06 pm | Reply

    • When push comes to shove, respecting what’s true matters more than respecting to what is only believed to be true. We’ve argued this before. Armed as you are with such willing respect for what is believed to be true, your approach is not part of the solution but part of the problem. As long as you pretend your willingness to compromise respect what is true on behalf of respecting what is believed to be true, you cannot be a force to help win the war against the insertion of religious belief into the public domain; you are in fact a typical collaborator thinking that your Mooney-esque apologetic framing of the issue is both necessary and effective in spite of nothing but evidence to the contrary.

      You do not “stand against creationism” but believe in it. You believe your god played an active and central role in creating life at some point. You may not believe in young earth creationism, nor even in special creation for humanity but like any other theistic evolutionists, you allow for the insertion of oogity boogity at some point. And that’s the central problem: there is no room at the inn of science for stabling any oogity boogity at all.

      Comment by tildeb — April 22, 2011 @ 11:25 am | Reply

    • Consider this typical response from a religious apologist like Z1G that science and religion have little if any incompatibility (if the ‘correct’ interpretation of scripture leads to enlightened faith-based beliefs) that so quickly and effortlessly shifts to the ‘Your Not Helping’ tact that condemns gnu atheists for having bad tone. It’s patently false that those who accommodate religious beliefs like Z1G are doing the real work of promoting good science like evolution. In fact and deed they are undermining it. They do so by maintaining that at some point an oogity boogity agency intervened in this mindless and directionless natural phenomena. This is simply another form of Intelligent Design. That’s theology and not science. The oogity boogity part is a giveaway.

      Now consider this comment over at Why Evolution Is True by Ben Milner (comment 85) who is signing on to an open letter written by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne asking the National Center for Science Education to drop its bible study and evangelizing mission that accommodates faith-based beliefs in oogity boogity and stick to the business of science education without gnu bashing. I reprint this comment in its entirety because it reveals just how potent is the gnu’s central message to stop respecting religious beliefs (in spite of Z1G’s assertion to the contrary):

      Those who reject evolution lump both atheists and evolutionists — whether religious or not — into the same bin anyway. And those theologians who accept evolution are enablers to those fundamentalists of religion who reject evolution. Like Jerry says, you won’t win the battle against creationism until you dispel the religion which it stems from.

      In my many discussions with creationists, particularly those who have a plethora of quotes at hand (and hence, consider themselves “informed”), most of the quotes they use to promote their rejection of evolution come from evolutionary biologists (e.g. The Altenberg 16) — anything that suggests some difficulty with the theory — they do not distinguish; so why should we divide ourselves?

      Let’s stop pretending that religion is reconcilable with religion — it is inherently ignorant and evil. I choose to just bite the bullet, because the sooner we take religion seriously — take it for the threat to science and the modern World that it is — then the sooner our future generations, our children, can enjoy a World that truly thrives — a scientific World — and what a wonderful World that will be.

      My goal is to live in a society that is scientifically literate, a society that thinks skeptically and rationally. How can we expect to achieve this if there’s scientists, who know damn well that religion has no utility, yet are too pusillanimous to take this position in public. How can we achieve a scientifically-educated society if there’s scientists who continue to foster religion?

      Think about who you’re capitulating to when you reprimand the so-called “New Atheists” think about what you’re really achieving when you patronise religious proponents by throwing them a sock. All those who have fought hard to advance science, suffering at the hand of religion would be mortified by this soft-handed approach, by this continual fostering of what is absolute crap, and by your failure to support your fellow scientists and let religious ideas smash mercilessly against the pavement of scientific scrutiny.

      Do not continue to obfuscate science with religion, as religious proponents eagerly await any chance that presents itself to claim someone or something academic as their own. It is bad enough that the general public do not see this obvious incompatibility between science and religion, but that we who know of this divide should not pretend it doesn’t exist.

      Personally, I was not converted by some act of guile, telling me that my whimsical, ill-reasoned, pet beliefs were compatible with science; I became interested in science because Richard Dawkins gave me a reasoned, enriching alternative to my former beliefs: a good dose of logic that was pure science; understandable, reasonable and without the confusion of hocus-pocus. It is thanks to Richard’s honest, no shit approach that I appreciate science and think more clearly now — that I’m free from the shackles of religion. It is thanks to Richard’s, reasoned, not-so-strident “The God Delusion” that I study evolutionary biology & the biomolecular sciences at university, after having been out of school for more than ten years.

      No, it is not thanks to Michael Ruse, or Kenneth Miller, or Francis Collins (all brilliant scientists that I admire) — whose religious positions I cannot make the slightest sense of — that I am where I am today; it is thanks to Richard Dawkins and the “New Atheists” I was subsequently introduced to.

      Comment by tildeb — April 24, 2011 @ 12:25 am | Reply

    • Or consider this succinct version of why there is no middle ground between religious beliefs and science:

      It is fiction. On one side you have the theological position: revealed knowledge that is dogmatically defined as perfect in nature. On the other side you have the scientific: knowledge obtained through attempted rejection of hypotheses by experiment. To quote Ichthyic over at WEIT:

      There simply is no middle ground. If you start with revealed knowledge, how would you verify it independently? Why, with science of course. So, you skip right over any imagined middle ground immediately.

      Comment by tildeb — April 24, 2011 @ 10:37 am | Reply

  4. ……………..Posted by on 2010-10-20 15 26 36 ………………………………….So I just had a massive argument with some guy pertaining to whether religious instruction to minors should be illegal…I say it should be. Morals are not something innate and human they are taught and aquired through learning as you grow up…Saying that someone can just change their mind and choose not to be religious is not a valid argument…Teaching someone a set of basic values from a religious perspective means that when they make their decision to remain a certain religion or to leave they are inherently biased. This is because the moral guidlines they base their decision on are completely compatible with those religious ideals…For example teaching children from a young age that everything was created with purpose means that when later on in life they question the existence of god they come to a barrier – if there is no god what determines an objects purpose?

    Comment by business review — April 22, 2011 @ 10:40 am | Reply

  5. your conflationary tactics are depressing and exactly what i’ve labeled you and hitchens and the “gnu-ilk” of doing time and time again. just admit the shoe fits.

    Comment by zero1ghost — April 22, 2011 @ 2:38 pm | Reply

    • Not as depressing as seeing another liar resort to name calling when their ‘belief’ in god is exposed for what it really is.

      Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 22, 2011 @ 4:28 pm | Reply

      • huh? what does that have to do with the price of rice in China?

        Comment by zero1ghost — April 24, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

    • Oh well, yes, your reputation for labeling is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether or not such labels are in fact true… not that that has ever been of much concern to you when compared to maintaining your trust in your faith.

      Comment by tildeb — April 24, 2011 @ 12:33 am | Reply

  6. “Oh well, yes, your reputation for labeling is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether or not such labels are in fact true”

    and just what have you done here?

    Comment by zero1ghost — April 24, 2011 @ 1:10 pm | Reply

    • Does the shoe fit? See here… and spend some time pondering how this can be so.

      Comment by tildeb — April 24, 2011 @ 5:21 pm | Reply

    • Oh sorry did I call you a ‘liar’ – I meant a religious person.

      There is no god ZIG – if you say there is you MUST have evidence; evidence that proves that there is a god – if you say there is evidence but you can not produce it (on demand) for serious methodical, demonstrable and repeatable inquiry – then you are a liar or deluded or both.

      Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 25, 2011 @ 8:19 am | Reply

  7. @~: dawkins stuff. not going to read ’em. doesn’t help my claim that you simply have your head so far up his butt you’re view the back of his teeth. so yeah… no further comment on that.

    @MUR: i’m not a reductionist nor an empiricist. there are lots of things you can’t prove, like ‘the self.’ yet i go more with Descartes than Hume on the subject, more Jung than Skinner. that maybe our difference. so i maybe deluded, i don’t think a liar, and there’s always more than two options my binary friend. i could be right, enlightened, crazy, funny, wrong yet helpful and a whole host of others.

    Comment by zero1ghost — May 2, 2011 @ 4:46 pm | Reply

    • I’d hate for you to feel uncomfortable in your bias. Stick with what you believe and stay away from what’s true: your comfort is everything to me.

      Comment by tildeb — May 2, 2011 @ 6:54 pm | Reply

    • Thought you’d appreciate this from PZ Myers regarding Dawkins’ ‘stuff’:

      We atheists and scientists have ideas that we are expected to explain and support with evidence, and we are accustomed to being jumped on with sadistic vigor if we fail to provide it. We merely apply the same methodological standards to religion. We do not insist a priori that gods cannot exist, we instead turn to all those people who insist that they do, and ask, “how do you know that?”

      Would you believe that for all the fervor of their certainty, none of them have ever adequately answered the question?

      There is no philosophical or metaphysical certainty on the part of us “New Atheists”, and we have no problem admitting it. Dawkins wrote it down forthrightly in his book when he scores himself as a 6 on a 7-point scale of atheism: “6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’” It’s genuinely remarkable how many people say they’ve read his book, and then walk away to claim that Dawkins says science “entirely precludes God’s existence.”

      I agree entirely with Dawkins’ sentiment. I also turn it around to use an agnostic sentiment on religious interlocuters: “I don’t know for sure, and you don’t either, so why are you being so high-handedly specific in your claims that god was a Jewish carpenter, or his prophet was a polygamist with a flying horse, or that Ragnarok is imminent? Give me a method for evaluating your claims, tell me what rational reason you have to believe that, show me the evidence!” And then they don’t.

      Comment by tildeb — May 3, 2011 @ 8:58 am | Reply

      • i totally disagree with your Aquinas quote and Galelio as his daughter was a nun. just read a book on their letters back and forth, interesting stuff.

        i won’t read dawkins. i can’t stand him. i do like the quote provided. as for a method of evaluating the claims, i don’t think i can do so directly. i can only tell you of the times where addicts who have been through everything (pills, rehab, etc) but the story about the carpenter did the job. how community gathered in that name can really change communities and individual lives. i have no method to measure or evaluating the benefits our community gives people; it just does. this seems to be the feeling of the scientists that are in our mix too. Grimlock esp.

        i think i’m a horrible apologist for religion. i really am. you could be right. that’s usually my stance, save for fundamentalists of any sort, creationists, and conspiracy nuts. i don’t know, you don’t either. that’ll preach, and i usually do preach that.

        Comment by zero1ghost — May 3, 2011 @ 2:15 pm

      • Galileo had two daughters, both of whom were nuns, one of whom died at a nunnery after he was charged. (Was she murdered?) I’ve known this for a long time, having written a forth year thesis paper on Galileo, thank you very much. I don’t need you telling me to pick up a book when I have picked up many on the subject, and yes, I have read Proofs of God’s Existence from Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, so don’t try to intimidate me with such names. Their writings are accessible (although Aquinas is a truly horrible even if densely logical writer. Simply put, his premises are wrong and demonstrably so). Your suggestion that because Galileo’s daughters were religious and that Galileo operated under a theocracy does not mean his blowing apart of metaphysics was somehow compatible with faith-based beliefs. Quite the opposite is true.

        And I think your willingness to accept faith-based beliefs as legitimate ways of knowing is very much a central problem in overcoming religious interference in the public domain. As long as there are people who think science and faith are compatible in the public domain, we will always have to battle creationism, with god-soaked justifications, with directed attacks against respecting what is knowable and true. I notice your admittance that you don;t know and I don’t either doesn’t stop you from promoting your carpenter’s story of magic and celestial tyranny as if it were true. Funny, that.

        Comment by tildeb — May 3, 2011 @ 4:14 pm

  8. WTF did this come from “so don’t try to intimidate me with such names.” i didn’t. it seems you aren’t willing to actually read my comments these days. just go off about my “willingness to accept faith-based beliefs as legitimate ways of knowing is very much a central problem in overcoming religious interference in the public domain.” blah blah blah.

    Galileo was very loyal to the church. he did blow away the metaphysic. yet Copernicus did the same thing years before, but why was Galileo locked up and Copernicus not? accessibility. the church feared that the populous would totally revolt and such against them once they comprehended Galileo’s theories, which i think is unfounded. Galileo stated that “the bible shows how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go.” which is a correct statement.

    “I don’t either doesn’t stop you from promoting your carpenter’s story of magic and celestial tyranny as if it were true.”

    haha. nice. magic and celestial tyranny. i’ll keep that in my pocket. the carpenter is right on many things and i find his story of hope and nonviolence compelling. plus the anti-empire/tyranny stance i’m really digging into those implications on my blog. best start some of those questions yourself because the more i read, the more i find how truly both religious belief and scientific research are being bought and sold and even worse, selling out to power and profit left and right.

    the carpenter was against it, and i am too. i will employ his methods. what will you do? odds are, sell out without your knowledge or even worse, sell out and justify it.

    Comment by zero1ghost — May 3, 2011 @ 4:45 pm | Reply

    • No, I can’t agree; Copernicus did no such thing intentionally like Galileo did with his On the World Systems, although an argument can be made that he (Copernicus) certainly undermined previous methodology assumed to be true within a metaphysical context: the trust of the senses. He did this (regarding the motion of the moon) by revealing that lunar calculations worked opposite to sensory input and thus ‘fooled’ our vision. But he went out of his way to maintain Aristotelian physics and the deepest of respect for Platonic forms if you’ve ever read On the Revolutions Of the Heavenly Spheres. He presented to the pope (posthumously and perhaps cowardly in hindsight) the math of the issue behind the heliocentric model, while his friend and publisher (after waiting nearly 36 years for Copernicus to croak) Osiander (a lutheran theologian) in the Introduction writes that the reason why Copernicus wants this model published is so that … it does not think them up in order to persuade anyone of their truth but only in order that they may provide a correct basis for calculation because it’s easier to calculate accurately than retrograde motion. Why wasn’t Copernicus punished? Firstly, because his model worked well for calculations, secondly because he was already dead, and thirdly because the truth of the model was otherwise unsubstantiated. The findings were interesting but of no real concern to the church.

      Galileo was very good friends with the pope and, as I wrote, had to work within the theocracy. But it was also a time a deep intrigue and jealousies among the mebers of various professions and great houses. Of course he was a ‘good’ catholic (and had to be so for his position of privilege)… so much so that he sent his two daughters into it. But he was a vain man when it came to being right, too, and successful in business (his telescopes allowed him to know which ships would make it safely to port long before others could and so he could make money from this insider knowledge).

      Galileo was also a popular writer with a wicked pen. I don’t think the church leaders were amused with the way he portrays Simplicio… who everyone knows to represent the church by always presenting the terribly flawed metaphysical arguments against Galileo’s findings, but Galileo’s popularity and deep friendship with the pope kept him out of trouble far longer than I think anyone else could have. And I think the pope would have continued tolerating Galileo’s ‘wild’ ideas (while some vatican astronomers continued to find cause for agreement but other astronomers from the various great houses maintained great jealousies, too, who advocated for their pet cardinals to cause Galileo grief). It was the Inquisition that interfered and laid down stringent rules after Galileo published Starry Messenger and it was the same office (Bellermine) that went after him following his brilliant On the World Systems. Galileo was doomed.

      I will quote this at length to clarify why the Galileo Affair is considered central to empowering science as we know it today and why this caused the church so much trouble: Galileo advocated for separation of theology from science:

      On the 23rd of February, 1616, the opinion of the qualificators was agreed and presented the next day in the plenary session of the consultors of the Holy Office. On the first proposition, the qualification was that

      “All said that this proposition is foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words and according to the common interpretation and understanding of the Holy Fathers and the doctors of theology.” (XIX, 321)

      For the second, the decision was that

      “All said that this proposition receives the same censure in philosophy and that in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith.” (ibid)

      It is important to appreciate fully what the key terms in these qualifications meant. “Formally heretical” implies that the first proposition was diametrically opposed to a doctrine of faith; that is, the opinion of the plenary session was that the words of the Holy Fathers and the literal interpretation of the Scriptures were to be understood as a statement of faith. (Note that this is precisely the position Galileo had warned of and tried to have his Church avoid, and Augustine before him — that of allowing faith to dictate a physical truth.) This charge was the most serious possible. “Erroneous in faith”, however, is a lesser complaint, according to which the Scriptures do not give a clear indication on the issue but, given the falsity of the first proposition, it would be an error to suppose that the Earth moves when it had already been declared a matter of faith that the Sun circles the Earth. As for “foolish and absurd in philosophy”, note that theologians were pronouncing a physical theory philosophically unsound. We have already seen, from Guicciardini’s letters, why these men should have taken such a short period of time (four days) to decide a question entirely beyond their ken on the basis of Scripture. Neither physical nor philosophical arguments were given. Galileo did little more than conclude “that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of Scriptural passages but with sensory experience and necessary demonstrations.”

      The rule he broke was no one relying on his own judgement shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held or holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers. Although the case is complicated and nuanced, the argument Galileo put forth against his accusers was that science and religion should be distinct fields of inquiry, with the caveat that the evidence from science should direct the ‘correct’ interpretation from scripture and that do otherwise was against god’s truth.

      So when you say Galileo was very loyal to the church, you must understand that he had many loyalties and many alliances and many friendships. But he also had their opposites, not a few who were very influential. He argued very well and was able to put the church into a very difficult position. The church decided to protect what it saw as its best interests by sacrificing Galileo merely to house arrest… for the remainder of his life (a small price to pay for heresy).

      But I mentioned the promoting belief in the magic of the carpenter to be dishonest when you write that neither you nor I know if it’s true. That you find value in learning about his life is fine and dandy; there are many people who provide us with examples of living a life we can learn from. One does not need to believe and promote the supernatural elements in the stories to add more of this kind of value.

      Comment by tildeb — May 3, 2011 @ 10:38 pm | Reply

  9. Been a lot time since anyone has posted here… This is what I have figured out.
    Belief is just another way of saying lie. Especially when there is truth that contradicts it.
    Religion has nothing to do with god, God has nothing to do with the bible, and the bible has nothing to do with religion… Religion has perverted it all. They refuse to tell you or even acknowledge they are not sharing the full story. The bible has been rewritten many times to suit the purposes of those in power… The bible is a historical account and revelations does not belong in it.
    The bible is more likely about visits from beings who had technology other then a mythical manish type creature who claims love then wipes everything out in fits of anger(This is not god).
    Existence predates 6000 years contrary to what new age religions believe.
    There is no such this as a Christian just those who pretend to be so.
    Catholics worship several deities.
    Religion has and always will do more harm then good.
    Religion is another form of government controlled by the rich and greedy.
    Jesus was against government, religion and the banking system which now most of his supposed religious followers support.
    Jesus was a popular name back in those days.
    Jesus, Hey-Sus, Zeus and Yah-Wey were possibly all the same.
    Why is there more evidence of aliens(be it from another planet, dimension or time period) then any evidence of god in the bible?
    Bible thumpers have no clue on what they believe in but put book marks in the bible to fight with words. (this is childish at best, literally they teach this to children.)
    Most religions are building armies to wipe each other out in a final act of evil and don’t seem to understand that.
    If god was an acronym would it be Government Of Death?
    If we were to locate god in our galaxy would it be M42? and Ironically in HHGTTG 42 is the answer to everything. (Sorry had to add a funny fact.)
    Is everything connected and yet mankind separated it’s self from that connection hence why we are so confused and lost?
    Even though I believe in god my prayers go unanswered… So far.
    And here’s a question that always gets me, A bad man that believes in god goes to heaven while a good man that does not goes to hell?
    But then again is heaven or the heavens really talking about space and hell what we are making Terra to be? Yes I called it Terra because this planets name is NOT earth. The moon is Luna and the sun is Helios.
    Is history doomed to repeat it’s self and we are all screwed no matter what or do we have the chance to make a new future and that be the point of things?

    Comment by TMaster — August 14, 2013 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: