I don’t know where astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been all my life, but he’s teh awesome! Watch “Stupid Design.”

(via Metafilter)

I love this summation of the non-controversy around “intelligent design” — otherwise known as creationism — from an article by Valerie Tarico at The Huffington Post.

Said whining will soon take the form of a ludicrous movie called Expelled, whose thesis is that so-called educators are being shut out of the academy if they dare to question evolution.

There’s been a lot written about Expelled, especially over at Pharyngula and The Panda’s Thumb. But Tarico’s article is a good summary of creationists’ calls to “teach the controversy.”

As she makes clear, however, there is no controversy.

She ends with a call to action.

One action that Pharyngula’s PZ Myers recommends is for bloggers to link the word Expelled to the Expelled Exposed website (which will publish its full response to the film tomorrow [April 15]) in the hopes of raising the site’s Google PageRank. Hey, it’s a small gesture, but still….

According to Slog, the movie opens in Seattle this Friday at the Uptown and Pacific Place theaters. I don’t think I’ll be going, and I hope no one else does either.

One story in the bible that I always wondered about is the one in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned by telling the crowd: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:3-11). I always wondered (somewhat snarkily) why Jesus himself doesn’t start the melee given that he is (supposedly) “without sin.”

Christopher Hitchens writes about this incident in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and, though he doesn’t suggest that Jesus should have personally started meting out the justice in this situation, he does raise (or relate via theologian Barton Ehrman’s scholarship) additional questions about this parable that hadn’t occurred to me.

First, he points out that the New Testament is supposed to vindicate the “gruesome laws of the Pentateuch,” of which stoning adulterers is one. How, then, does Jesus (who is not yet, at this point in the story, “proven” to be divine) get off undermining that code and “forgiving” a criminal? What authority does he have, and what does this incident say about Mosaic law?

Second, regardless of the cruelty of the punishment, how is a justice system supposed to work if only non-sinners can prosecute individuals?

Third, the woman in question was caught in the act of committing adultery, but there’s no mention of her partner-in-crime who, by the same law (Leviticus 20:10), should be stoned to death as well. And not only does he escape punishment entirely, but the woman apparently gets off scot free as well after Jesus intervenes. Does this imply that Christianity should take a more liberal attitude toward sexual transgressions? That adultery is OK and forgivable?

Given that this parable seems to demonstrate that Jesus advocates ignoring the laws laid out in Leviticus in favor of something approaching reason and tolerance, and that he seems to think that deviant sexual practices are OK, maybe today’s Christians can follow that example with regards to lying with mankind, as he lieth with a woman. They don’t seem to have a problem cutting their hair and shaving (Leviticus 19:27), or with the blind, lame, or flat-nosed (Leviticus 21:17-18).

During my first year as a graduate student, I encountered the book Against Theory, which includes the eponymous 1982 essay by Steven Knapp and Walter Benn Michaels as well as an array of responses to their pragmatist screed.

For those of you lucky enough to have escaped the intellectual vortex of literary theory in its many guises, Knapp and Michaels offer a succinct definition in the opening sentence of their article.

The contemporary practice of literary theory, they continue, either seeks “to ground the reading of literary texts in methods designed to guarantee the objectivity and validity of interpretations,” or “denies the possibility of correct interpretation.”

They conclude that all acts of interpretation (or “reading”) are attempts to derive the author’s (or speaker’s or painter’s) intention. The text in question, and any surrounding historical or social or personal context, merely provides evidence as to that intention, and we as readers make truth claims about meaning that cannot be proven to be correct but, by that same token, cannot be proven false. All we can ever hope for is to make a compelling case for our “reading,” and there’s no need to hold out for some regulative ideal or impossible “perfect” interpretation of the “real” meaning of anything.

If this seems obvious to you (and it should), keep in mind that attempts to complicate and obfuscate that process have kept literature (and film studies) professors employed for many decades.

It occurred to me then that Knapp and Michaels’ whole beef with theory could pretty easily be applied to theism. Putting aside the creationist notion of a cosmological “author,” one could argue that religions, like theory, seek to “ground” interpretations of the universe in some method that guarantees their veracity. In doing so, the introduction of further evidence that might undermine or undo (or correct) a previous interpretation is viewed with hostility because it no longer calls just the particular interpretation into question, but the method (or theory) itself. This is obvious in how believers react when some element of their belief system is claimed to be false. If one posits that the Bible is the 100% perfect inspired word of god, for example, and then are confronted with one of the hundreds of errors or contradictions in the book, one cannot easily shrug that off without admitting that the entire “theory” it’s wrapped up in is flawed. So denial or hand-waving ensues. Or torture and beheadings.

But beside shaking up the ontological and epistemological bases for “theory,” Knapp and Michaels also make the audacious claim that their revelation has no consequences for the practice of literary criticism or interpretation. We will continue to interpret texts like we always have; indeed, we cannot do it any other way. All the various theories do are explain the interpretation process incorrectly. If we drop them, we lose nothing (except a bunch of poorly-written books about theory) and we gain nothing (except maybe more time to read).

The reason that I’m rehashing this idea from fifteen years ago now is that I was reminded of it whilst reading Christopher Hitchens’ truly excellent book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

In it, Hitchens relates the story of Pierre-Simon Laplace, a French scientist from the late 18th century who constructed an “orrery,” or a working model of the solar system. When confronted by Bonaparte as to why the model did not include the figure of god, Laplace responded “Je n’ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse.” (“I did not need that hypothesis.”)

Just as we don’t need a “theory” of interpretation to explain how to read, we don’t need some mystical construct to explain how the planets revolve around the sun. In regarding the universe, there are no consequences to dropping the notion of god out of the equation.

Huh. I had never heard of this before. [Via Lacrimae Rerum.]

From Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia

The Treaty, as it was written, was signed by John Adams and unanimously ratified by the U. S. Senate.

Take that all you “America was founded as a Christian Nation” zealots. Not in any sense.

My friend Kate recently alerted me to a campaign organized by the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (no, I’m not linking to them) to boycott/protest the upcoming fantasy film “The Golden Compass” because — according to them — it has an “objective to bash Christianity and promote atheism. To kids.” Kate’s fitting response was “I want to slap people.”

Got that Christians: Just don’t go see it lest Nicole Kidman’s bewitching eyes or Daniel Craig’s piercing intensity infect you with godlessness. Because we all know that movies are like giant syringes that inject their ideologies directly into your brain. And the kids, the kids!! Won’t someone please think of the children?!?! Since they are born atheists, seeing this movie might interfere with the other forms of indoctrination you’re subjecting them to. Keep them away!!

Remember when the atheists got all hot-and-bothered about the movie version of noted Christian apologist C. S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia? Remember when we all advised our fellow heathens to boycott the movie’s advertisers and picket the theaters because we were scared for our secularism? Oh wait; that didn’t happen. I forgot, we trust ourselves to not be somehow hypnotized through the mere act of watching a movie.

I read the Chronicles of Narnia when I was a kid. What does that tell you?

Anyway, Catholic League, I’m sure New Line Cinema thanks you for the free publicity.

Oh, and how about teaching kids how to engage with and evaluate ideas critically? Just a thought.

Sam Harris recently spoke to the Atheist Alliance in which he argued that using the term “atheist” is a mistake.

I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

The problem with this line of reasoning, as I see it, is that using the words Harris lists do not, as he says, “put astrologers in their place.” An astrologer, like a theist, is not going to reject — or even question — their beliefs just because someone calls bullshit on them. The other problem is that astrology, unlike religion, does not hold any real sway in public discourse. Astrologers are not trying to teach children bad science in classrooms, for example. The astrology column in the newspaper is usually next to the comics; it does not comprise an entire “Faith & Values”-type section unto itself masquerading as real news or legitimate advice.

Like Harris, I would dearly love for religion to be on par with astrology some day, and for those who believe in the imaginary creator in the sky to be regarded the same as those who turn to the zodiac for guidance.

But, we are clearly not yet at that point — as Harris observes, “240 million [Americans] apparently believe that Jesus will return someday and orchestrate the end of the world with his magic powers.”

In his call for atheists to not use any label at all — not “secularist,” “rationalist,” or the admittedly cringe-worthy “bright” — Harris argues that “accepting a label, particularly the label of ‘atheist,’ … seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture.”

And that’s as may be — I do feel cranky at how delusional the broader culture is. This term I use to describe myself positions me within the culture in opposition to views and opinions that I believe have no merit and no business being seriously discussed. And it helps me identify my allies in that struggle. If Sam Harris, or his publishers, had never used the term “atheist” to describe him and his writing, I probably never would have found him, and I doubt he’d have been asked to speak at the Atheist Alliance.

Admittedly, use of the term “atheist” (or any similar term, as per Harris’ point) may serve to repel those who are not likeminded. But how receptive to rational arguments would they be even if it were served up without a charged and overdetermined label?

To me, therefore, the term is undoubtedly problematic but remains more useful than not.

UPDATE: Upon review, I see that PZ Meyers has a similar, and probably more insightful, reaction up at Pharyngula.

Oratory has a long and noble history. In ancient Greece, oratory was considered a necessary part of the study of rhetoric and was a required part of a well-rounded education. The British parliament has famously placed a high regard on the skilled delivery of speeches from the floor. And even some our own politicians of the past have inspired their fellow Americans with stirring speeches and linguistic flourishes (though not, of course, our current idiot of a President).

But nowhere is oration more alive today than in the vast megachurches and evangelical temples of our nation’s embarrassingly large Christian population. As a subgenre of oratory, preaching can turn even the most contradictory, head-scratchinging, mind-numbingly silly passages of the Bible into powerful theater with the ability to brainwash weak minds.

And though there are a number of eloquent atheist writers enjoying a higher profile these days (e.g. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins), they can hardly be described as “charismatic.” Dawkins is easily disregarded by believers who simply object to his perceived arrogance and snarkiness, and the acerbic Hitchens is generally entertaining, but again, only when he’s preaching (sic) to the converted (sic).

I generally regard Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation (and discussed on this blog here and here), as the most level-headed and persuasive of all the big-name anti-theists out there today. Sure he goes on a bit much about “spirituality,” but he not overtly offensively and mocking.

Recently, I found a podcast (fancy word for “MP3 file that you can download”) of Harris’ talk at something called the “Aspen Ideas Festival.” (Listen!) In it Harris explains very patiently and convincingly explains why he believes religion and theism do more harm than good in the world.

He’s exceedingly logical and articulate.

And boring!

Would it hurt the guy to use some intonation? I’m not asking for any “Can I get a ‘Hallalujah!’” or anything, but maybe a bit more range to the volume would be nice. The guy even had some pretty funny lines, and then steps all over himself when the audience starts laughing.

We atheists need impassioned, powerful speakers. What has happened to the Clarence Darrows? The Bertrand Russells? Where have all the atheist orators gone?

I really respect and admire Sam Harris, and I think the speech he gave was spot on, and may even possess several points that would make actual believers stop and say: “Hmmmm. I never thought of that.” But I doubt any of them would get past the first 5 minutes. I only did because I was on an elliptical machine at the gym when I listened and if I tried to change the channel on my MP3 player, I would have strangled myself.

Again, this is not to dis Mr. Harris’ arguments. This talk contained some of the most reasoned arguments against theism and religion that I’ve ever heard. It was well-organized. It was exhaustively researched. It was also as dry as a nun’s gusset.

Nevertheless, I do recommend it to all believers and non-believers out there who happen upon this infrequently-updated little patch of teh internets, and I would welcome your comments on it.

(Again, that link is: http://download.publicradio.org/podcast/wordforword/2007/09/070914_wfw_64.mp3

Like many good atheists, I was raised Catholic. But my family was by no means devout. We attended mass irregularly, I never said prayers before meals or at bedtime, and I lived more in fear of what Santa Claus would do to me if I was bad than God. Nevertheless, I had never knowingly met an atheist and it wasn’t until I was in my teens that the option of simply not believing there’s a God even occurred to me.

In my latter years of high school I first developed a friendship with an outspoken nonbeliever. My own ambivalence to religion and theism tipped toward atheism at that point, but I still considered myself an agnostic at best.

In my first year of college, I took an introductory anthropology course to satisfy a science requirement. I was an English major at the time (the first of many such “majors”) and had only a passing interest in the topic. I think my girlfriend at the time pushed me to take it.

During that class, I first learned the story of the peppered moth — the classic tale, derived from research done in the 1950’s by Bernard Kettlewell, by which the process of natural selection in a species can be easily explained through observable phenomena. It sort of changed my life.

Continue reading "Ye Olde Peppered Moths" »

A mother on Amy’s parenting discussion board related a story about how her daughter’s private Christian preschool sent her daughter home with a lifelike fetus doll after conducting a class session on embryotic development that was clearly aimed at indoctrinating the children in the school’s anti-abortion ideology.

Again: that’s a preschool class.

The mother was justifiably outraged by this and spoke to the school’s director, who issued a generic “I’m sorry if you were offended” type of non-apology. She received a more sympathetic reception from the teacher, who had objected to the lesson but was overruled by her zealous boss. She was assured, however, that the material was presented in an “age-appropriate manner.”

The mother reported that she intends to keep her daughter in the school despite this incident, and wrote at length about how she still considers a religious education to be important because of the positive aspects of it, the values it instills, etc.

To me, this story illustrates the conflicted nature of religion as it is practiced. This parent, who seemed to be a thoughtful and intelligent woman, essentially wants to be able to pick and choose which elements of religious doctrine she wants her daughter exposed to — she wants a cafeteria-style Christianity.

This approach fails to appreciate that the nature of religious dogma is to not allow that level of flexibility. It is contradictory to the concept of “the gospel” that individuals are allowed to believe and practice certain parts of it and not others. If you want to be a Christian, you have to take all that comes along with it. It’s like cable TV: you sign up with Comcast for ESPN and Comedy Central, and you get the Golf Channel and Home Shopping Network whether you want them or not. You might not watch them, but you pay for them every month anyway.

It always surprises me that people who find themselves in the midst of this type of moral conundrum don’t realize that if they just dump religion in general they would gain the freedom to choose their own beliefs about issues based on their own merits and benefits. They would be open to question, explore, evaluate, investigate, learn, and change their minds about the opinions they form.

I agree with the mother in that many of the world’s religions (not just Christianity) teach valuable and important moral lessons that can serve as positive pedagogy. But those lessons — helping others, not killing people, etc. — are valuable and important whether they are inside or outside a religious framework. And if they are within a religious framework, you have to be prepared to agree with all the other questionable and just plain wrong stuff that comes along with them. That’s not an inconvenient side-effect you can try to ignore or complain about; it’s part of the program.

Dump the program.

My standard news sources are abuzz and consumed with schadenfreude over the news that yet another Christian Republican — this time, Florida state representative Bob Allen — was caught with his pants down … er, rather, caught trying to get down the pants (for $20) of an undercover male cop. It didn’t take long for the blogosphere to dig up several hilariously hypocritical tidbits about Allen’s legislative record, including his authorship of a “Lewd Or Lascivious Exhibition Act” and his 90% voting alignment with the Christian Coalition.

It’s almost cliché to say that those who are the most vociferously homophobic are the ones most deeply closeted, but it’s guys like Allen who keep the cliché alive and help underscore its truth. It seems pretty obvious to me that a fair percentage of individuals who feel so compelled to battle “immorality” that they get elected to public office and attempt to legislate away “problems” such as homosexuality are doing so to counter the shame they feel about their own true natures. In that way, a story like this is sad — a man who is obviously confused about his sexual orientation is so fearful of being exposed by a generally homophobic society that he marries, has a child, and affiliates with a rabidly anti-gay organization (the GOP) as a cover. One can only assume how unhappy he has been all his life, and how devastated those he has lied to must feel.

It also stands to reason that this same MO is present for those who most loudly proclaim their religious faith and who denounce, slander, and demean unbelievers. The strongest voices that praise Jesus and call people like me sinners probably belong to those whose hearts are so tormented with doubt they dare not pause to reflect lest they realize their entire belief system is bogus. The Christian obsession with “joy” and Christ’s “love” is, to me, an obvious mask for how deeply unhappy the average Christian must truly feel.

But unlike closeted homosexuals, closeted atheists are not going to somehow be caught in the act of revealing their true nature. There is no tradition of atheists secretly meeting up at highway rest stops for anonymous philosophizing. There are no atheist prostitutes who charge $20 to reassure you that it’s OK to not believe in god. It’s unlikely that an elected official will be caught IM’ing about Richard Dawkins with his eighteen-year-old page. They can only step out of the atheist closet voluntarily after finding the courage and strength to confront the truth.

In finishing up Sam Harris’ The End of Faith (also see Sam Harris' The End of Faith) I’ll admit I experienced a bit of a disappointment when he took on pragmatism — the philosophical school that got me through, and thankfully out of, my wacky graduate program.

Pragmatism has always offered itself as an alternative to the realist/idealist dyad, and tends to reject the concept that there is a transcendental truth somewhere outside of our ability to perceive the world. Harris concludes that this notion is dangerous in that it can lead to moral relativism and, thus, could lend credence to religious claims that only belief in something “higher” can guarantee moral behavior.

The pragmatist’s basic premise is that, try as we might, the currency of our ideas cannot be placed on the gold standard of correspondence with reality as it is. To call a statement “true” is merely to praise it for how it function in some area of discourse; it is not to say anything about how it relates to the universe at large.

He even ominously — and at the risk of adding a new branch to Godwin’s Law — invokes Osama bin Laden in stating that the terrorist leader’s “favorite philosopher” Sayyid Qutb feels that pragmatism would lead to the “death of American civilization.”

But Harris misrepresents pragmatism, which, I would argue, is actually in support of his — and atheism’s — agenda.

Continue reading "Lingua Pragmatica" »

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution (DefCon) has established a website and online petition aimed at shutting down the recently-opened Creation Museum and misinformation center in Kentucky. Everyone living in reality should go to that site and sign the petition.

For the museum’s ribbon-cutting ceremony, the organization hired an airplane that displayed a banner reading “Thou Shalt Not Lie.” They have also produced a brief primer entitled “Top Ten Reasons Why the Unvierse, Sun, Earth, and Life are not 6,000 years old” [PDF] and have a number of amusing “Creation Museum” T-Shirts and bumper stickers for sale at Cafe Press.

I was both annoyed and pleased that Sam Harris’ book The End of Faith had almost 300 holds on it in our Seattle Public Library system when I added myself to the list over six months ago. I didn’t really want to wait so long to read it, especially since it’s over three years old now, but I was happy that so many others were still interested in it.

Last week, I finally got my notice that it was available, and I’ve been mostly pleased with it so far. I’ve enjoyed reading Harris’ essays and debates on the web. Harris is less condescending that Richard Dawkins, but no less sharply critical about both the absurdity of religion and the myriad problems that it causes in every society in which it exerts a significant hold on the masses (which is to say nearly all societies).

Harris’ central argument builds upon the issues I wrote about a couple weeks in relation to the “COEXIST” bumper sticker. Religions are inherently intolerant of each other, Harris argues, and religious moderation is a myth.

Continue reading "Sam Harris’ The End of Faith" »

I saw this bumper sticker on a car the other day. At first, I thought it was advertising a new goth band, but I quickly realized it was an attempt to promote religious egalitarianism and tolerance.

The “why can’t we all get along” approach to faith is admirable but fatally flawed. The attempt to promote peaceful co-existence among all religions (and science, as iconified as E=mc2 neglects two important points:

Continue reading "Coexist" »

Excerpts from Christopher Hitchens’ book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything are available on Slate. I haven’t read it yet, but the excerpts indicate that Hitchens is less loopy than Richard Dawkins while being similarly unapologetic about atheism and equally irreverent towards faith. I especially like his nuanced answer to the argument that atheism is itself a type of religion:

Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.

A while ago, I wrote about my efforts to convince the Seattle Times to include the perspectives of non-believers in their weekly “Faith and Values” section. The postings generated a lot of traffic (for this site, anyway) with two commenters making the point that “secular options in the newspaper are abundant” such as “Dear Abby” and “Miss Manners,” so there’s nothing wrong with one small section devoted to religious views once a week.

I didn’t really have a good response to that, as I sort of agreed with them even though there was something about it that nagged at me as being beside the point. Nevertheless, I let the issue drift and just continued to flip past “Faith and Values” each week on my way to the comics. That “Fox Trot” is a hoot!

Today, however, two things prompted me to return to the issue and try to state my point more clearly and emphatically.

Continue reading "Faith, Values and Atheism, Part 3" »

Via Feministing:

In Canton, Ohio, a school board decided to expand sex education to allow for discussion on contraception after realizing that 13 percent of [Timken] high school’s female students were pregnant.

An interesting footnote revealed by a comment on the original post:

This is the same Canton, Ohio that is home to the Timken Company. This is the same company that is run by Bush “Pioneer” William Robert Timken. George Bush visited the company in 2003 to push his tax cuts for the rich. A year later the plant closed…. So the High School, named for Timken, followed the BushCo abstinence-only doctrine and this is the result.

In today’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer, political cartoonist David Horsey wonders: “Why are human beings so eager to ignore hard realities and buy into reassuring myths?”

I was a staunch Santa Claus believer well into second grade….

Finally, though, when my friend Ronnie showed me all the toys “from Santa” he’d discovered in his parents’ closet two weeks before Christmas, I began to give in. I felt no resentment, however. Santa Claus was a happy, magical illusion that I was glad to have had and one that I recreated for my own kids.

Not all frauds are quite so benign, yet grownups throughout the world cling to them, usually because they reinforce deeply held political, ethnic or religious biases.

He goes on to cite Holocaust deniers, WMD holdouts, and 9/11 conspiracists as those for whom “it is easier to believe a Big Lie than a mitigating truth about people they have chosen to hate.”

The belief in gods is the fundamental underlying cause of this phenomenon, and, ultimately, the answer to Horsey’s question.

Continue reading "The Biggest Myth" »

In the “Faith/Values” section of the Seattle Times last Sunday, I read an article about Francis S. Collins, a scientist who converted to evangelical Christianity after reading C. S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity and who now lectures on the supposed compatibility of faith and science.

One of my bus friends, who is a biological scientist and a Christian, was reading that very book the other day, so I thought the mention of it in this article was an interesting coincidence. I’ve never read Mere Christianity, though I’ve certainly heard of it. And now, here’s a renowned geneticist who claims that the first few pages birthed him again, so to speak. What powerful arguments or reason-shattering prose was this C. S. Lewis fellow capable of? I didn’t much care for those Narnia books; but maybe his skills lie not in fables but in faith.

I was pretty disappointed to learn that Mere Christianity is the modern origin of the old “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” argument, otherwise known as The Trilemma.

Continue reading "The Trilemma" »

The good news is, I found the perfect summer camp for Ray to attend when he gets older.

Camp Quest is the first residential summer camp in the history of the United States for the children of Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists, Brights, or whatever other terms might be applied to those who hold to a naturalistic, not supernatural world view.

Wait, strike that! They also have one just north of Sacramento around Nevada City!

Summer at atheist camp for Ray; summer for me and Amy at nearby Lake Tahoe…. This sounds like a plan!

This is some seriously fucked up stuff. From Harper’s (also via boingboing): “It turns out there’s an upside to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah — if you’re waiting for the second coming of Christ. Here’s a selection of excited messages spotted over the last few days on the Rapture Ready/End Times Chat online bulletin board.”

Praise God! We are chosen to be in these times and also watch and spread the word. Something inside me is exploding to get out, and I don’t know what it is. Its kind of like I want to do cartwheels around the neighborhood.

I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what’s going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, oh happy day, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!

This is the busiest I’ve ever seen this website in a few years! I have been having rapture dreams and I can’t believe that this is really it! We are on the edge of eternity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got that dancing feeling on the inside of me.