Thought For The Day
October 17th, 2006 | by Craig |I was visiting with a friend the other day about the general state of affairs in the world, and he made the following observation, which I think is an interesting notion, and I’m still trying to digest it:
The United States is still a Puritan nation, but now we’ve replaced “God” with “choice.”
39 Responses to “Thought For The Day”
By Gman on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Indeed, “choice” has been elevated to an absolute to some extent. It makes you wonder if and when this philosophy of moral relativism will be taken to the point that you should have the “freedom” to kill someone because it’s your “choice.” We certainly have that with abortion on demand and euthanasia. If and when will this new “religion” extend to everday human interaction. Historically, this is rare if not nonexistent on the individual level, but history has shown that the collective has had the ability to deny basic natural rights (including life) to individuals (in particular minorities) simply because it had the power to do so.
By Chad on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Ah, yes! I regularly pine for the good ol’ days, back before there was any choice!!
By Shane Mason on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Yeah, remember the good ole’ days when we didn’t burden women, minorities and non landowning white men with choices? Like, having to choose who to vote for? Like, what church to worship in? Like, what to wear. Yeah, that rocked. Mondern times suck.
By Matt Singer on Oct 17, 2006 | Reply
Craig — this is actually why I support socialism. I think we have too much choice in restaurants. It’s actually the root of my disagreement with markets as a whole.
By Chad on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
All this infernal choice we have in our life sure makes me miss life under the USSR. Man, that was the life!!
I may seem over the top with my rhetoric here. I got to this point by asking myself at what point in America’s history has choice, used as a general term, not been an absolute component of what it means to be an American? When I asked myself that, my answer is never; it has always been part — a large part of Americanism. With that in mind, and following things out to their logical conclusion, you get the opposite of too much choice.
Is too much choice, used as a general term, really a problem? I hardly think so. I think this is really a faux lament to tar a specific choice or sets of specific choices with that brush.
By Craig on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
What if I told you all that the friend who told me this was an ACLU-member, union-supporting, non-christian, card-carrying Democrat?
By Shane C. Mason on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
I would say that you are trying to goad us. Choice is always good. Know why? The absence of choice implies that someone has already made the choice for you.
By Mark T on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
The comment is one for rumination. God is odd - we’re told to worship him as children but he never reveals himself to us! We worship somethign we can’t see or touch or know or understand. Weird!
But I’ve long thought that the euphamism “choice” is transparently phony. It’s only incidental to the debate about when life begins, which is really only a substitute argument for the real undercurrent - half of us telling the other half that “You vill believe in my God!”
So maybe belief in choice is really about freedom of religion. Maybe your friend nails it.
By Craig on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
I’m not trying to goad you at all; I find the notion interesting, and it comes from a former philosophy teacher.
I also knew that the criticisms of the statement would be vastly different from the left and the right.
By Mark T on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Excellent thread, by the way. This is blogging at its best.
By Jay Stevens on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Hm. I can’t really find anything negative about the idea that absolutism in thought has been replaced with individualism and self-reliance.
It’s odd though, I agree with Gman when he says,
The statement is especially poignant when considering that yesterday the President signed a bill that allows American agents to torture and indefinitely detain anyone the President wants. And a lot of Americans seem comfortable with this. In this case, I liked the “absolutism” of the rule of law and the humane treatment of suspects.
By Dani on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Actually, there is an interesting book by Greg Easterbrook, “The Progress Paradox,” that posits the exact opposite. Easterbrook’s main point is that average Americans and Europeans now benefit from the highest standard of living ever known, yet are unhappy. He thinks our problems now lie in the vast array of choices that we have- simply put, we are haunted by the possibility that we will make the wrong choice. He also discusses “collapse anxiety,” which I think is a very interesting and applicable concept.
Also, I had heard we replaced “God” with “tolerance.” But, I guess what we are doing is learning to tolerate each other’s choices, no matter how odious.
By Gman on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
How can you absolutize choice? You don’t see the danger in doing so? Maybe I’m missing something. You have a choice to do what you like…until it infringes on another’s natural rights. Rule of law? I believe the gov’t’s primary purpose is to protect the rights of one individual from infringement by another. It seems a logical extension, then, that a woman should not have the choice (right?) to kill an unborn child (an individual). In fact, the gov’t should have laws against it just as it has laws against murder.
Shane, I’m trying to get your point in comment #3. Spell it out for me. Are you saying that “we’ve come a long way baby”? So, are you implying that the choice to kill an unborn child is progress? I don’t care about “choice” insofar as its practice doesn’t DIRECTLY affect the bona-fide natural rights of others. Live and let live.
Jay, I would generally oppose any morally repugnant means to an ostensibly worthwhile end. In a vast majority of instances, the ends don’t justify the means in my view. And, Jay, you make my point: the collective (the gov’t) has the power to deny the rights of the minority (suspected terrorists). Those who give up freedom for security, deserve neither freedom nor security.
Mark T… see John 20:28,29: “Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’” And, your insinuation that we worship God as children is a misinterpretation of scripture. We are to be “like a child” when approaching our faith, not actually revert to childhood. In Mark 10:15, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” What was Jesus getting at? He wants us to humble ourselves in order to make way for faith. In Matthew 18:4, Jesus said, “Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus isn’t saying that we should revert back to our childhood, but that we should become LIKE children. All of us who have kids, know the innocence of children. Their minds and hearts are empty pages ready to be written on. We must empty the pages of our lives in order for Christ to write a new and eternal chapter. Geez, I sound like a preacher!
By Dani on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Mark T-
The Christian church has a very long history of using reason to approach God. In fact, that’s what Pope Benedict was trying to say when he got blasted for an out-of-context quote regarding Islam. He talks about reason limiting itself when it artificially places religion outside of the realm of rational inquiry. He goes on to say:
The italicized part of this quote are stunning. The whole text is here. It’s a good read for folks who think faith and reason are, or should be separate.
By Chad on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
Craig, re comment 6:
It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn of a liberal background to the person that originated that quote. You yourself quite eloquently compared the choice in the abortion debate with the choice in the school debate. I am big enough to admit that I almost fell into that thought trap with my comment in 5 — I had initially written it framed around the choice of abortion, but I realized in the nick of time before clicking submit that the knife cuts both ways. One of the things that bothered me about it — which is why I specifically referenced the lack of choice under the USSR was that it very well could have been an anti-capitalist who would say such a thing — much more likely in my opinion than for a libertarian.
Gman, re comment 13:
The argument in your first paragraph falls short where this argment always falls short. All government protections everywhere hinge on one thing: citizenship. A woman is a citizen. A pregnant woman is still a citizen, singular. Nowhere is a fetus ever a citizen. A government based on equality cannot deny rights of it’s citizens at the behest of an entity that is not yet a citizen. If abortion is banned, then the concept of women being citizens should be banned as well — because they effectively will cease having citizenship.
By Colby Natale on Oct 18, 2006 | Reply
I would wager that the original quote (and I could be wrong) was far more about mundane daily choices like “Gee, which of the 1,000 Fast Food restaurants should I eat at today”, or “Wow, which depression medication should I try on my kid this time”. I don’t disagree that in some societal, pop culture kind of way, we are addicted to CHOICES. In fact, I would change it to an addiction to options. But what many here, myself included, fear is the idea that having a choice 9as in having a say, is our addiction. I believe Shane nailed this version of choice when he said that not having a choice means someone already made it. That is the choice that not having scares us.
By Craig on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
The choices you mention, Colby (and Shane) are mostly consumerial (is that a word?) in nature, and while they can, at times, be annoying — how many brands of toothpaste or ketchup do we need — they are more of a tangible example than an actual symptom.
It all depends on how you see our society. Look around at some of the things that we can all (probably) agree are problems: fatherless children, the breakdown of the nuclear family and the attendant community for example. Why are these happening?
Well, if you don’t like your marriage, then you can choose to get out! If you don’t like the pressure of the community to be responsible and raise your children, then choose not to!
We’ve made everything a choice, when maybe we should make some things non-negotiable.
By Craig on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Chad–
Something about this argument rings familiar. Perhaps from the 1850’s?
By Mark T on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Since I was a child I’ve been told of the “be as little children” sayings of Jesus. I think he is giving us a basic tenet of religious belief - that faith and thinking are magnetic opposites. I choose to think, best as I am able. That leads me to a non-relgious life, which I find very satisfying.
By Gman on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
A non-religious life is fine, Mark T, but you can’t make a blanket statement that religion and reason are antithetical. Trust me, it’s not the case in my own personal experience. For me, it’s an odyssey to understand as much as is humanly possible who Christ is. I haven’t stopped studying since I became a Christian at 21. In fact, through thoughtful study (reason) my understanding of my faith and how I live it has improved. That doesn’t come from downloading information with no effort on my part. It comes from a commitment to understand, and that, in itself, as a rational undertaking.
I don’t mean this to be flippant, Mark T, but as someone who is leading a “non-religious life” how would you know what it’s like to lead a “religious life?” Or, is your non-religious life actually your religion?
By Craig on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
My hunch is that Mark does have a pretty good idea about folks who live a religious life. I’ll let him elaborate, though.
By Dani on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Mark, you have touched the other generally accepted way to approach God. If you read the Pope’s speech, you will see that he mentions that the “leap of faith” became very popular at the time of the Reformation. But, well before that, and continuing onward, the rational basis for Christianity was literally the Greek logos which was translated in English to be The Word. Clearly, however, it is also the Greek root of “logic.” For instance, the Ten Commandmants are extraordinarily logical, if you want to stay out of trouble in most societies. You may not cotton to the first two commandments, but that doesn’t reduce the rational basis for the rest. Then Jesus came along and added to the list of “don’ts” with a list of “do’s.” He was also the advocate of true democracy. No surprise, then, that these two sets of teachings influenced the Founding Fathers, some of whom were atheists and most of whom were children of the Enlightenment.
In fact, I just finished a book called, “Mountains Beyond Mountains,” about an atheistic, liberal, and extremely brilliant physician who spent his whole life treating TB patients in third world countries. He eventually came to embrace an aspect of Catholicism called “liberation theology,” because it made complete sense in that part of the world. He wasn’t knocked to the ground by a bolt of lightning, nor did Mary appear to him, nor was he born again.
I was never happy with the leap of faith idea, either. In college, I needed to get some credit hours to keep my scholarship, I was finished with my bio major but had to wait another year for graduate school. So I took some philosophy courses, one thing led to another, and I ended up with a second major. Among other things, I learned that most of the greatest thinkers of all time were religious. Including Einstein.
By Dani on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Darn, I missed a bracket.
[Fixed. –Ed.]
By Mark T on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Religious belief is fine - it makes people behave well, and even makes people do good things for the sake of doing good things. But as Steven Weinberg reminds us, good people do good things, bad people do bad things, but for good people to do bad things requires religion. It’s a mixed bag. But people need it and that is fine with me. It gives them certainty and security in a world that offers neither. It denies death. That’s comforting if you can’t handle not living forever.
But I part company with y’all on the reason aspect of it. You work backwords - you start out knowing what is true and spend your lives looking for evidence and constructing logic to prove it to yourself. That’s very unscientific. You’re not pursuing truth, but rather attempting validation.
For myself, I was raised in a strictly religious home. I sort of went through the motions for many years, but decided one night to 1) quit the Knights of Columbus, and 2) quit the Catholic Church. I waited for the sky to fall, but it didn’t. Slowly I came to accept that we don’t need religion to be good, that most people want to be good, that events are random and that control and security are illusions. This all led me to Vonnegut’s meaning of life - that we are put here to fart around and nothing else and that we should always remember that.
By Jeff on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Sorry for just sort of jumping into this, but this is kind of bewildering to me. Does it really matter that smart people have been religious? The world is filled with brilliant people who believe some really bizarre things.
Einsteinian religion is more akin to atheism than typical theism. He didn’t believe in a personal God (he thought that was silly) and he was essentially using God as a term for the overwhelming complexity and mystery of the universe. This isn’t much more than a terminology difference from someone like Richard Dawkins.
As for reason and faith, it seems to me that many people use reason to sort out different issues regarding religion, but there’s a leap in there somewhere when it comes to justifying particular religion. Even if it’s not explicit or acknowledged, there’s a jump using a “god of the gaps” argument, an unjustified belief that some kind of feeling is evidence of external realities, a circular argument using some holy book, etc.
It seems that early Christians held worldly reason in contempt. Paul’s disparging comments on the “wisdom of the world,” for example. Augustine in the same manner. Certainly people like Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation disparged reason as well, but it doesn’t seem like there was much use for reason as a basis for Christianity (as opposed to reason in service of Christianity) until Aquinas. Did any Christian theologian attempt independent proofs of God before him? I’m certainly no expert on the history of Christian theology, but Aquinas seems like the first to express the idea that Christianity can be justified using reason alone. He was still working backward, in the same vein as Mark is talking about, but it looks like a big jump to me. I’d be interested to know if he really was a big jump or if theologians before him expressed similar ideas.
By Colby Natale on Oct 19, 2006 | Reply
Plus, saying that most of the greatest thinkers of all time were religious is (given that the majority of people in general are religious) about as surprising as saying that most of the greatest thinkers of all time drank water. Jeff’s point on Einstein’s vision of religiou should remind us that someone calling him or herself ‘religious’ doesn’t tell us much on its own.
By Gman on Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Mark T, I would generally agree that people are good and strive to be. However, is that general capacity for goodness strong enough to resist great evil? I’m sure most Germans were “good,” yet the Holocaust still occurred. (The Third Reich was democratically elected.) Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So, what is it that gets man to be more than good? You make the mistaken assumption that Christianity is nothing but moral philosophy — i.e. how to live the good life. I used to think that, having grown up Catholic myself. What I learned is that morality is really a small part of Christianity. Christianity is, in essence, about faith in Christ. From that faith, Christ dwells within us and we come to know the reality of God through Christ and his Word. We are then enabled, as Dallas Willard says in The Divine Conspiracy, to “live the life that is truly life.” Moral living is simply a byproduct. Christianity is not, as many Christians and even non-Christians believe, an other-worldly religion. I’m not thinking about eternity. I want to live the life that is truly life. Christianity has both temporal and eternal significance. A true Christian isn’t just farting around waiting for heaven or the Second Coming.
It’s kind of sad that one would ascribe to the notion that “we are put here to fart around and nothing else….” It forces me to inquire, Mark T, if this really is the reality of the universe, then why bother being good? You seem to imply that “being good” is good for society. In order to be good, wouldn’t one have to know what “being good” is? Yet, what is good if life has no meaning? If people have no destiny, they have no inherent value or dignity. If that is true, then why should occurrences like the Holocaust alarm us? That was the view of “good” at that time for the German people. You see, if you eliminate meaning from life (in particular transcendent meaning), you literally expose humanity to evil. If you have good, you must also have its opposite.
Let’s face it, a mere piece of flesh farting around through life is dispensible. If there is no meaning or destiny to life, then we shouldn’t be concerned when a few (or even a lot) are dispensed. Is that what you believe, Mark T? You may not think it, but if enough people think life is meaningless, then we have holocausts. Ideas have consequences.
By Dani on Oct 20, 2006 | Reply
Einstein’s religion was not very close to atheism at all. Atheism means the person believes there is no God. Einstein was closer to the Deists, like the Founding Fathers; the Clockmaker theory. He might have been weak on morality, but he was religious nevertheless.
Also, my point about the greatest thinkers of all time was meant to counter the concept that “The world is full of brilliant people that believe some really bizarre things.” I should have pointed out that many, if not most, of these people also expounded on religious matters, sometimes to the exclusion of everything else. So it’s not as if being religious was incidental to their thought, as Colby believes. We can’t just disregard the fact that these people were brilliant and chose to think about religion.
Were they all wrong? Every one of them, just nuts or mistaken, or given to inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive reasoning? (Remember, the former usually does have to precede the latter or one can’t even come up with a hypothesis). We can’t expect Aquinas to adhere to scientific reasoning when it wasn’t even invented yet. Theology still continues today as a real discipline in most universities- wouldn’t that lead an objective observer to think that there might be something worth thinking about, if so many well-educated people are doing it? In fact, many of the Ivy League schools were founded as divinity schools.
So what about Dr. Paul Farmer, the TB doctor, who did deduce that liberation theology seemed to make a hell of a lot of sense? He looked at the theory, looked at the application of the theory, and looked at the outcomes. He did indeed use reasoning to compare religions. People did better under liberation theology. It isn’t a coincidence that Americans have done pretty damn well under democracy, considering its foundations. As I said before, Jesus was the original democrat (with a little d).
Like gravity, the theory works. Also like gravity, we don’t have a full understanding of it- but it’s a mistake to reject it as being beyond the grasp of our reason just because we don’t understand it yet.
St. Paul, was so early in the years of Chrisitanity, they didn’t even have a developed theology. He is not considered to be a Doctor of the Church- he was the one I referred to as being knocked down by lightning. His focus was faith. What some people don’t realize is that there is a huge body of work that has devloped in great detail, and that it’s a work in progress. For some Christians- not all. For some it is all about faith, and faith only. A tiny minority believe every word in the Bible is literally true and prescriptive. But not most- because they think.
By Jeff on Oct 21, 2006 | Reply
Sorry for such a long post. Feel free to tell me to shut up and stop wasting your space, Craig.
I don’t think you can find him express a belief in the clockmaker idea. He didn’t believe a god created the universe, he believed the universe was God (technically pantheism). He believed in nothing “supernatural” nor a personal god, leaving him quite a ways away from typical religion.
In my humble opinion, evolution can explain religion. There are plenty of books you can read on the subject (Scott Atran’s being an excellent on). And really, arguments from popularity are pretty lame. Billions of people think you’re wrong about Christianity (or more specifically, your brand of Christianity). Are they all nuts?
Let’s just knock off the intelligent people are religious argument, too. There are intelligent people who believe wildy different and contradictory things. Some of them must be smart and wrong. I would submit this: as you move into the elite scientific organizations (NAS, the Royal Society, etc), you find belief in God is a minority. As in, the people dedicated to discovering truths about the world are far less religious than the general population. Isn’t that indicative of something?
I don’t think anyone’s saying religion isn’t worth thinking about. The volumes of argumentation produced by those who don’t believe in it should show that. That’s not the same as saying it’s reasonable. In my experience, the justification you dislike, pure faith, is the overwhelmingly common one, even among apologists attempting to justify their beliefs through argument.
I think you missed my point about Aquinas, too. My criticism of him was that his arguments are really only convincing to those who already believe. He did, however, put forth reasoned justifications. As far as I know, he was the first one. Since Christian theology predates him, I fail to see how it can be claimed Christianity was founded on reason and logic.
I don’t know anything about the situation, so I can’t say much about it. I would ask how exactly liberation theology “worked.” Then I would ask why it “working” means anything. People lead great lives being religious. Does that really mean their religion is correct? What works seems to be an indication that the idea takes into account the behavioral traits of human beings and manipulates them in a useful way. That human beings came up with it isn’t surprising, nor is it surprising that it is religious, given that our brains are predisposed to such beliefs. It still doesn’t make Christianity’s statements about reality correct.
I’m curious about your association of Jesus and democracy. I don’t remember him saying anything about democracy in the gospels. I’m sure you know the idea predated him, too. So, what gives?
I don’t think it doesn’t matter how early he was, as he wrote a large portion of the New Testament. I think that means he’s a pretty important figure and that his ideas are a major part of Christianity.
By Mark T on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
I suspect that professional Darwinists, if they haven’t already, will come up with a theory on why being ‘good’ is good for propagation of the species. But stand back and take a longer look - you’ll see that religious ethics only apply within given societies, and are thrown out the window when various societies deal with one another. The prohibition against murder is a joke - we’re legally murdering each other all the time, and huge industries are build around the tools we make to accomplish those murders. It’s all legal, it’s all for the good, we’re told. Where does religion enter into it?
Side note: Great story about Billy Graham - he had real influence in the Nixon Administration, and supported a plan advanced by Kissinger to bomb the dikes in North Vietnam, flooding the entire countryside, killing probably a million people. That’s a religious leader urging the death of a million. Just a side note.
Gman - you repeatedly refer back to the Holocaust - it was one event in a long series of events - it’s not at all unique or terribly unusual. We systematically killed one another before, have done so since, will continue to do so. The reason is this: We’re put on a planet by your God - we’re given limited resources, we populate like lab rats dependent only on food supply, and so have to fight one another for those resources. That’s our situation. Your God steps in and says oh, by the way, don’t steal, don’t kill one another. Righto.
I’m rambling - here’s my bottom line - take religion out of the world, and the world will be just as it is now. We’d simply have to band together under different cultural banners.
Religion is personal. It does wonderful things for people. Collectively, less so.
Regarding Vonnegut and farting around, I stand by my support of that. Maybe it’s hard to accept, but I don’t think we’re terribly significant and will likely pass by our own hand or by some natural catastophe. It would be a shame not to have enjoyed life to its fullest while here. Part of that enjoyment is the good we do for each other.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Jeff, I really think that you are missing the point. I am not trying to get in to the fine points of Christian theology,or whether it is “correct” (I never used that term, you did). I am trying to say that to state it is outside the realm of reasonable thought is a relatively “new” phenomenon, and potentially limiting from viewpoints of both religion and reason. You dismiss it as irrational, and let it go at that. You have made up your mind as surely as you believe Aquinas made up his, and you look for proof to suit your vision. There are many ways to approach God, and one of them happens to be through rational thought. Pure faith is another.
Here’s an example of a modern-day atheist who gets this point quite well. Please give the post a read. Even if you disgree with her views on Islam, you might appreciate her views on. reason and religion.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Money quote from the above links, for those who need a synopsis:
By Jeff on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
I must be missing the point, as I don’t see the relevance of the link you gave, especially as evidenced by the part you quoted. I’m not saying religion is outside of reasonable thought. I’m saying that judged by reasonable thought, it’s completely unsupportable. That’s what I mean when I say irrational. I think that’s what Mark meant as well. It looks to me like you think someone is advocating NOMA, which doesn’t appear to be the case.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Mark, I think this thread demonstrates that nothing motivates people like religion!
I don’t know if you are old enough to remember the movie “Carwash”, but Richard Pryor played this charlatan preacher (is that redundant?) and he sang a song, “You’ve got to believe in something, why not believe in me?” I think that’s true. The times society has taken religion out of the culture, e.g. the USSR, it has failed. China, Mexico and France have all allowed religion to creep back in after atheistic revolutions (literally) killed off their respective religions. People just have a hard time rallying around a banner that is carried by, well, other people.
By Mark T on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Dani - Religion is merely our cause of the moment - remove it, as they did in Russia, and we’ll still kill each other. Stalin didn’t exist because they had no religion over there - I dare say the Russian people never lost their religious belief.
The western world has no bragging rights in the killing department, by the way. We’ve done enough to make Joe proud.
Religion is a manifestation of our nature, as is killing one another. They exist side by side - one does not cause the other.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Mark, I agree religion and killing are two different manifestations of each other. It’s a popular meme that religion is the primary source of conflict with massive losses of life, but it is utterly untrue, at least in modern times and in sheer numbers.
Stalin was a product of western thought, unfortunately. But, I think you are referring to the political definition of Western Europe and North America (democracies). In that case, we are way, way behind communism and the various & sundry dictatorships in terms of killing people. I don’t think even Hitler was in the top ten, despite his efficiencies.
By Dani on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Arrgh, I meant to agree with you that religion and killing are two different manifestations of human nature.
By Chad on Oct 22, 2006 | Reply
Craig, re 18:
It may also sound familiar from 2003:
That quote is courtesy of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.