Thursday, August 17, 2006

The Devil's Third Commandment: All Metaphysics and God-Talk Shall Be in Vain (8.10.08)

One of the purposes of this blog is to encourage serious people to take religion seriously. I was once a person who didn’t take religion seriously, although even in my atheagnostic days, I probably wouldn’t have objected to being called “spiritual,” since it’s such a bland and neutral description that essentially means anything you want it to. I have observed that a lot of liberals feel this way. They will describe themselves as spiritual, but draw the line at religious, as if it is an insult.

But this type of unstructured spirituality usually amounts to either solipsism or narcissism, because it is wholly subjective and makes no demands at all on the person. Furthermore, it usually alienates the person from potent channels of grace that is the true catalyst for change.

In fact, authentic religions are frameworks for spirituality, in the same way that music theory is a framework for music. You can try to play music without it--you can be “musical”--but except for rare exceptions, you won’t be able to play much of interest. It will be a pretty vain endeavor. This is why, for example, regardless of what objection you may have to the Catholic church, they have produced more profound spiritual geniuses than the “new age” ever will. Frankly, there’s just no comparison in terms of depth, power and spiritual radiance.

I'm not taking a position for or against, but when you hear debates about whether or not the Ten Commandments should be displayed in schools or courthouses, you will often notice that liberals assume their typical superior tone of mockery and derision toward them--as if some arbitrary laws thought up thousands of years ago by primitive people have any contemporary, much less universal, applicability. While they will grant that it might be bad under certain circumstances to murder or steal, they especially dismiss injunctions against making graven images (discussed in yesterday’s post) or taking the name of the lord in vain. No one is going to tell a leftist what he can and cannot mock, since knee-jerk adolescent rebellion is at the core of leftism. If they can’t blaspheme, what’s left for them?

You will also notice that no one is more literal-minded or “fundamentalist” than the leftist who rejects religion. That is, they reject only a caricature of religion that they have concocted themselves. Or perhaps, as often happens, they had a bad experience with a dysfunctional version of religion as a child, and are in perpetual revolt against it. While perfectly understandable--in fact, to a certain extent, I was a victim of this myself--there is no reason why it should pose a lifelong obstacle to opening oneself to the boundless depths of genuine religion.

For the past couple of days we have been discussing how leftism (and remember, when I use that term, I’m generalizing about the deep structure of an entire philosophical attitude or temperament, not this or that particular leftist) represents an upside-down version of Judeo-Christian teachings, and how it manages to invert each of the commandments. In other words, they are not just against the Ten Commandments, but (whether wittingly or unwittingly) enshrine their opposite.

The third commandment is “You shall not take the name of the lord in vain.” There are even many Christians who believe that this means nothing more than refraining from cursing. If so, what’s the point? If that were all it amounted to, then liberals might even be correct in mocking something so seemingly trivial in the overall scheme of things.

First of all, this commandment has something important to say about metaphysical vanity, specifically, vain and fruitless talk about God, of which there is an overabundance. Much religious talk is entirely vain, in that it serves no purpose--it is mere “pneuma-babble” emanating from the ego, not the spirit.

The omninameable One has revealed several of his names to mankind, perhaps the most important one being I AM. In fact, there are certain forms of yoga that consist of nothing more than meditating on the mystery of this I AM to which we all have magical access. To do so is to engage in the deepest form of vertical recollection, for this I AM is not located in the field of time. Rather, it eternally radiates through the vertical now to which humans have unique access. To dwell in the primordial I AM--or so ham in Sanskrit--is to reconnect with the eternal ground of being. It is anything but vain.

As I was at pains to point out in One Cosmos, the truths embodied in genuinely revealed religions must be experienced, not merely thought. This is really not much different than, say, psychology. You can read all about the criteria for a depression or panic attack in the DSM, but unless you have actually experienced a panic attack, the words don’t really convey the experience. If anything, they might even convince you that you understand it because you have the words for it, but the words are merely pointers or place markers.

Especially with regard to religion and psychology, words must be analogous to bank notes that one may “cash in” for their actual experiential value. Otherwise you are simply dealing with religious counterfeiters and with spiritual “funny money” that has no value at all. It is entirely vain. When you read Meister Eckhart or Saint John of the Cross, you know that their words are backed by the full faith and credit of the First Bank of Divine Reality. When you read Deepak Chopra or Tony Robbins, you know that their words are backed by the full faith and credit of their rampant narcissism. But Gresham's law means that bad spiritual money tends to drive out good, which accounts for their vast personal fortunes.

Perhaps the worst way of taking the name of the Lord in vain--and the most spiritually catastrophic for the person who does so--is to use the name of God as a pretext to commit great evil, as do the Islamists. I’m trying to think of a worse sin, but I can’t at the moment. What the Islamists are doing is beyond evil, for they are committing evil in the name of God, thus undermining the very possibility of the good.

Contrary to popular understanding, these monsters of depravity are worthy both of divine wrath and our own unyielding holy anger, even hatred. True, under most circumstances it is appropriate to “hate the sin and not the sinner.” However, it is entirely legitimate to despise the sinner to the extent that he has not only completely given himself over to sin, but fully identifies with it in an implacable way.

In other words, the Islamo-nazis are not just committing evil, they are willfully identified with evil--more, they are absolutely committed to violent overthrow of the very possibility of the good. It is our sacred duty to hate these monsters in the proportion to which we love the Good. In no way does this mirror the illegitimate, passionate, and sadistic hatred of the Islamists themselves, for holy anger is dispassionate and does not surpass the boundaries of its cause. Americans do not chop off heads for fun; they only do what is necessary to stop the evil.

It is not only a spiritual error to think otherwise, but the failure of a basic societal defense mechanism. We did not win World War II by not hating Hitler, who was also entirely worthy of our divine anger. Again, like an Arafat, Nasrallah, or Ahmadinejad, he was not a mere sinner but the embodiment of sin. Woe unto spiritually depraved groups such as CAIR that align themselves with these embodiments of evil. As Jesus might say if he were here, "somebody needs to grab a whip and go seriously money-changer on those creeps." It's the Christian thing to do.

If you don't despise the vile people who rejoice and dance in the street upon hearing this, then there's probably something wrong with your soul. Or how about people who would use their baby as a liquid bomb? Oh well, all cultures are equally beautiful, I suppose.

There is one additional aspect of the third commandment that I had wanted to get into, but I can see that I won’t really have timelessness enough to expand upon it. That is the possibility of metaphysical knowledge which is both objectively true and operative, or fruitful, in the psyche. Virtually all postmodern thought is in agreement that metaphysical knowledge is not possible--that it is “vain.” Here again we see an exact reversal of the reality, for the religious view is that human beings most definitely have access, through the uncreated intellect, to objective truth. There are eternal truths that man may not only know, but without which man would not be man.

Example?

Oh, there are so many, I don’t know where to begin. How about this one: “semantics cannot be reduced to syntax.” Because it can’t, language is not just a vain epiphenomenon produced by a modified primate brain, including the mathematical language that governs the physical universe, the language of DNA, the language of music, or the language of Shakespeare. Ultimately, it means that meaning is indeed meaningful and not merely a vain irksomstenchial pursuit. The cosmos is not just a tale told by a tenured idiot, full of sound and fury but signifying short hours and a nice paycheck. Rather, it is a valhallicle of Ultimate Meaning.

23 Comments:

Anonymous dilys said...

Much of the "spiritual" chatter appears to be an amalgam of at least two agendas:
--seize & attempt to demonstrate some kind of unearned moral or other high ground "superior" to other people; and
--immunize the chatterer, or reader, or listener, against the hard necessities of actually doing a Teaching, of inner application to facing the beast within.

Both motives chime nicely with a "Religion: eeeeeuw!" default reflex.

I think that self-immunizing by being ad hoc "spiritual" is especially dangerous. As Garrison Keillor said in one of his essays about being a particularly unsocialized boy: he had read so many novels about society he thought he was in it.

The Fathers of the Eastern Church call self-directed spiritual presumption "prelest," and it resembles in a way the danger of being bread that has been baked before the yeast has risen.

In most counseling sessions, and I suspect therapy, the surest sign of unreadiness to engage productive change is the response tacit or spoken: "I'm already doing that," or "I know that."

Sometimes we're fortunate not to "already know" a great deal. The genuinely thankful, for instance, when told to be grateful, don't bluster, "I'm already very grateful, thank you very much," but become silently attuned to the beauty of gratitude, and agree sincerely, pleased to turn their attention, "yes, I could be more grateful." Tell a truly humble person he's proud, and he'll know just what you mean.

Any and all of this that's worthwhile is of course already neatly summed-up by the great who encourage us to live and tell how to live in that light.

"Come to terms quickly with your accuser." The Sermon on the Mount

"Don't push your evolution." Byron Katie

8/17/2006 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous will said...

>>They will describe themselves as spiritual, but draw the line at religious, as if it is an insult.<<

Heh, yeah, that's nearly become a mantra for the lib/left. In fact, I've heard it so many times I have to believe that it's a roundabout declaration for *their* religion - the Church of Religion Deniers, a.k.a., the Church of The Path Of Least Resistance. After all, a religion is a shared spiritual belief (in their case, a faux spirituality. They might not call it a religion, but that's what it is.

>>Perhaps the worst way of taking the name of the Lord in vain . . .is to use the name of God as a pretext to commit great evil, as do the Islamists. I’m trying to think of a worse sin, but I can’t at the moment.<<

I hate to say anything that could be construed as actually being in favor of the Islamofascists because they obviously are a monstrous evil. However, didn't JC indicate the one all-trumping, unforgivable evil is the denial of Spirit? The Islamofascists distort and disfigure Spirit beyond all recognition, not to be argued. But the passion, the primitive fire is there (albeit totally out of sync with spiritual/historical continuity, and without the fire blazing at some point, there can be no transcendence, no sublimation of fire into Light. Many of the Christian saints, prior to actually becoming saints, were eccentrically wild, borderline criminal, actually.

By contrast, the Spirit-deniers - the Ahrimanic left - are essentially passionless, devoid of fire, utterly subsumed by dull, lifeless materiality. And of course, their lack of fire means they won't resist the more dramatic forms of evil such as Islamofascism. In effect, they encourage lifelessness, lack of resistance to evil. They encourage despair and anomie. I think a good argument could be made that this is the greater evil. (pretty close call, though)

8/17/2006 11:42:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

I suppose the question is, who's worse, those who give God a bad name or those who give him no name at all?

8/17/2006 11:47:00 AM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

And Dilys, thank you for that wisdom from the yeast.

Nature abhors a vacuum, but the Spirit requires one.

8/17/2006 11:50:00 AM  
Anonymous stu said...

Sorry if this is a duplicate post; I had problems with the original. In response to:

"The Islamofascists distort and disfigure Spirit beyond all recognition, not to be argued. But the passion, the primitive fire is there...and without the fire blazing at some point, there can be no transcendence, no sublimation of fire into Light."

Transcendence is simple and pure and no big deal at all. It only seems so weighty when compared to our ordinary consciousness. When contemplating transcendence from the relative points of view of individual or cultural consciousness, we perceive a great distance between ourselves and higher levels of consciousness. The differences between these perspectives are so fundamental that they elicit strong emotional responses - fear, passion, denial.

But these strong responses are merely egoic defense mechanisms against Truth. Passion is not a stepping stone to truth. It is quite the opposite. It is a trap set by the ego to hinder access to higher levels of Truth. Absolute Truth is necessarily found both within and beyond our Reality, internally and externally. But worldly passions of any form (even the spiritual search itself) focus one's attention entirely without. They are merely another veil of ignorance.

This is not to say that experiencing sustained transcendence is the least bit easy or that being passionate about something is innately evil. We'll all struggle through many at bats before getting on base, let alone hitting a home run. However, the passion of the Islamofacists is not a step up on the ladder to Realization. Rather, it is two steps backwards. It is an altogether denial of God.

And it is just one more example of transcendent Truth being subjugated to the material half-truth. In this sense, Radical Islam acts out their God-denial via the same general pattern the dysfunctional postmodern left uses, just in a more overtly violent way.

8/17/2006 12:50:00 PM  
Anonymous will said...

>>the passion of the Islamofacists is not a step up on the ladder to Realization. Rather, it is two steps backwards. It is an altogether denial of God. <<

True, can't deny. But the primal fire, is absolutely required for transcendence. The trouble with the Islamofascists is that they've come upon their passion - their paganism - way out of historical sync, therefore it constitutes an evil. Paganism had its necessary day up to about 2500 years ago, since then, it's been a regressive course.

>>Passion is not a stepping stone to truth. It is quite the opposite. >>

I think this is central to the Great Paradox of spirituality: One really does need desire to reach a state of no-desire. Passion for spirituality, as contrary as that sounds, is necessary at some point. As someone once told me, spirituality is a matter of surrendering lusts, and the last lust to be surrendered must necessarily be the lust for God.

8/17/2006 01:15:00 PM  
Anonymous stu said...

>>Passion for spirituality, as contrary as that sounds, is necessary at some point. As someone once told me, spirituality is a matter of surrendering lusts, and the last lust to be surrendered must necessarily be the lust for God.<<

I agree that until the end game of spiritual develepment, passion is a necessary companion. But the passion of the Islamists, much like the passion of Dawkins or anyone else on the looney left, is purely destructive and regressive. This kind of passion is not an intermediary step of Spirit revealing itself. It is an act of the ego defending its territory and destroying its opponents.

8/17/2006 01:32:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

"As I was at pains to point out in One Cosmos, the truths embodied in genuinely revealed religions must be experienced, not merely thought. This is really not much different than, say, psychology. You can read all about the criteria for a depression or panic attack in the DSM, but unless you have actually experienced a panic attack, the words don’t really convey the experience. If anything, they might even convince you that you understand it because you have the words for it, but the words are merely pointers or place markers."

I am afraid I have to slightly part company with you here. I do believe it is possible to have a close relationship with God without being part of a formal organized religion or place of worship. In fact, the more knowledge I gather and experience throughout life, the closer I do feel to God. It seems hard to escape sometimes. I personally have not found an organized group of people or one set of traditions that I want to base my life around. I am intensely fascinated by religion and reading about it, but there is not one that exists now that I want to follow. I have no problems with other people practicing a certain religion, as long as it does not seek to actively harm others that do not, as is the case with Islam. In fact, I am appalled that Islam is even considered a religion. I view it as more of a death cult, satanic in nature.

I think I have a streak of independence that does not mesh well with organized religion. I try to lead a life that helps others, as well as myself, and enjoy a life of freedom and choice. I also feel close to God, as if I really had a choice! ;0) Maybe there will come a time when I can appreciate sitting through a religious service without feeling like it is a punishment. I am open to the possibility, but have not come across such a group at this point in my life. Perhaps I am a self-delusioned narcissist, but it seems to be working, so far!

8/17/2006 01:46:00 PM  
Anonymous primal_john said...

This is definitely not off subject. This quarter's issue of Enlightenment magazine "From the Blogosphere" below his photo says this about Bob (below his photo):

"Dubbing himself an extreme seeker and off-road spiritual aspirant, Robert Godwin has a way with words, and his words have a way of describing the spirit. Trained as a clinical psychologist, Godwin has a free-ranging pen and his blog covers a lot of territory, but he particularly shines when his mind roams over the nature of evolution -- both cosmic and cultural.

Inspired by Whitehead, Wilbert, Teilhard de Chardin, Aurobindo, and others, Godwin's revelatory "adventure in consciousness" is lighthearted even as he reveals how humans reflect the cosmos they live in and why to know ourselves is to peer into the structure of this mysterious universe. Some might take issue with his politics (he eviscerates the left and calls liberals adolescents), but there is plenty here to keep your mind on higher matters and your spirit aloft."

8/17/2006 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger The Bunnies said...

I'm finding myself in agreement with Lisa. I grew up in a church that used to say much of what Bob here says, but although I never left it, it sure as heck left me(although I still find some it its literature incredibly helpful). Now I find that whenever I go into a church that I like some aspects of it, but others simply turn me off and I feel no real connection to what's going on there, although I sometimes wish I did.

Also, Stu's post reminded me of an interview I saw recently with three ex-terrorists. At one time, all three were in a very dark place, but they've since recovered, and I find that they provide insights into the evil that is Islamofascism that few of us can ever grasp.

I know that certain choices can run wildly contrary to God, but sometimes it's people who've made such choices but then repented that can be among evil's most potent opponents.

8/17/2006 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Lisa and Bunnies--

I think we agree. I said " the truths embodied in genuinely revealed religions must be experienced, not merely thought." Unfortunately, I believe that in most churches, wisdom, which can only be experienced for oneself, is reduced to mere religion. Religion is supposed to be the framework for spirituality, but often it is just a skeleton with no flowing blood. Ideally one wants both, but it's clearly not always possible.

8/17/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Jacob C. said...

Bob:

Misinterpreting and distorting the message contained in the Word is a blasphemy. But with the exception of the Marxist liberation theologians (you know, the guys who say Christ was just Che Guevara born 2000 years too early), the left is trying to ERASE the Word, to delete it as if it had never been spoken.

The gospel of the Left is, paradoxically, that there is no gospel, there is no objective Truth, there is no divine guidance, there is no Word - and only when we reject the Word for the World, for our horizontal this-and-no-other-reality, will our minds be free.

Your question is better phrased: Who is worse, those who are ruining God's reputation, or those who are attempting to assassinate Him?

8/17/2006 02:52:00 PM  
Blogger Lisa said...

Phew, I am glad we agree. I hate it when we fight!;0)
I was pretty sure it was just a misunderstanding on my part.

See, that was a reasonable dialogue and agreement. I would love to see that take place with the Mullahs or Kim Jung Ill, as many moonbat generals propose. What planet do they live on?

8/17/2006 04:06:00 PM  
Blogger lazlong said...

All I can say is, wow. I just recently found your blog, and I am allready hooked on your insight. As a fellow traveler on the road (allthough I am far behind), I thank you for putting this out for people to see.

8/17/2006 05:37:00 PM  
Blogger Guitanguran said...

Wow, Bob. My remaining brain cell is so out of shape. Great points on what I've actually been able to absorb.

From the standpoint of a re-fried Baptist and a long time non-organizational type Believer, the go-it-alone approach makes for tough slogging. At least,that has been my experience. Whether you look at the Tabernacle model of the Old Testament or the Koinoneia model of First Century followers of The Way, there are spiritual perks in being part of whatever club you join that comes with engaging others...in person. Turning your earlier point back around, I think you really do need to experience the 'real thing' to get the full understanding of it.

8/17/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Blogger Guitanguran said...

BTW is the GAGDAD your preferred tuning, by chance?

8/17/2006 07:34:00 PM  
Blogger geckofeeder said...

Lazlong, welcome if you resonate with those interested in truth that are here. Did you know that "fellow traveler" is someone who supports the communists but lives in the west with all its freedoms and privileges? Probably not as I don't imagine they tell you that in history books and you look kind of young . Most cybernuts hanging here seem to have had the training wheels of some kind of organized religion( Thank goodness everything got cleared up with Lisa and Bunnies. I'm with them. ) And always with the obnoxious zen master turqoise shrink. Sweet dreams.

8/17/2006 10:32:00 PM  
Anonymous ben usn (ret) said...

The fire of the Spirit purifies,
while the fire of evil consumes.
I have experenced both, but much prefer the fire of the spirit.
I have a Passion for the fire of the Spirit, and have come to the realization that it is never what I expect, but it is what I need, and I never regret accepting it.
There is a faux, fleshly passion/desire for the fire of evil, but thankfully, that wanes more and more, as I am purified by the Spirit, and my character, my spirit grows from the living Water of Life.
Will- I would liken the passing away of Passion/desire to the passing away of
hope and faith:
They are the last to pass away, leaving Love, whic is Eternal.

8/18/2006 12:05:00 AM  
Blogger Gaude said...

My dears, what a great discussion.

In one respect, you could look at adherence to a religious tradition as an act of obedience to and love for the Truth.

The Anchoress had a good post about this a while back - it's not that you shop around and find what suits your already formed ideas, you look for the Truth and conform yourself thusly, to whatever God or His designated authorities tell you to do.

Of course, 'authority' puts most peoples's backs right up, and understandably so, thanks to the fallout from everybody's falleness, but the final assent to authority is still a matter of free will.

Dilys is spot on - I've done both, at various times. The best "non-chatter" is road map: here's where you want to go and here's how a lot of people get there. With an appendix of alternate routes.

I'm going out on a limb here - I'm betting, from personal experience that there is a lot more living faith out there than we realize. It's just not very articulate - so it doesn't speak up. But it acts, instead.
(Though I admit that I'm in a particulary good spot to see that -and perhaps my view is skewed.)

8/18/2006 06:02:00 AM  
Anonymous joseph said...

guade,

it seems to me that the obedience to authority is part and parcel of what Western Civilization has come to reject as "enlightened". This is what the Islamists do, and this is what, say Catholics do when they don't use birth control, and don't limit the number of children. Democracy is, clearly one person, one vote. Basically, every person has their own church, and their own relationship, right or wrong, with God.

8/18/2006 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anne said...

Thanks, Bob. I’ll try not to let you down, although being born a leftist, unfortunately I can only use the right half of my brain.

Jacob C: “Misinterpreting and distorting the message contained in the Word is a blasphemy.”

I’m glad you said that. Does that also apply to the imperfect human religious leaders who accidentally or intentionally twist the intentions of the Holy Books? (Don’t pretend they don’t exist.)

Bob – “Unfortunately, I believe that in most churches, wisdom, which can only be experienced for oneself, is reduced to mere religion. Religion is supposed to be the framework for spirituality, but often it is just a skeleton with no flowing blood.”

I have to say that’s exactly why I prefer the term “spirituality” to “religion.” Religion carries some bad memories from my childhood – two words: Catholic School. Still, being the best person you can be and seeking out G-d and Truth are the same no matter what you label it. I just have a little PTSD, that’s all.

On a different subject, It seems that the war in Israel has had the effect of making individual Israelis put aside their differences temporarily to fight together for the greater good. I suppose it’s unrealistic, but I wish the rest of the world could follow Israel’s lead. As for anti-semites, anyone who has known even one Jew well or studied Judaism with a genuine desire to learn can not possibly be anti-semitic. To do so would be truly evil. You’re right, hate websites are absolutely rampant. Every one I have seen reads as if it were written by children – and not a single one can give a legitimate, intelligent reason for disliking Jews. For an interesting take on this subject, I suggest reading Abbagav’s August 18 posting at http://abbagav.blogspot.com/

Going back to your “Real Lumin Being” post – yes Bob, a beefcake photo would be lovely. ;)

8/18/2006 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger lazlong said...

Geckofeeder,

Thank you for the welcome. That whole communist thing is definatly not known to me, but of course, I didn't live during most of the intrigue that the former USSR caused here in the States, except where it intersects some of the Submarine tales that were passed down in the Navy. But, when it comes to some phrases, especially something as simple as "fellow traveller" I won't worry too much about the old connotations, because, well, they are pretty simple and can be used for multiple things, not just a communist in the West.

8/20/2006 08:52:00 PM  
Blogger SmithBlog said...

This blog has some interesting insights on religion and sprituality, particularly how spiritual seekers have been marginalized in certain circles as secular materialism has become the dominant worldview in ivory tower academia. In Europe, secular materialism has become even more pronounced than it is here in the U.S. Our entire educational system is based on Dewey's secularist ideas from a century ago. It is regimented, impersonal, alienating and one size fits all. In many ways, the public educational system is outdated and needs a major overhaul. Values have no place, which is a major problem and can only contribute to society's problems, such as crime.

I must take issue, though, with Godwin's characterization of the left as the sole source of anti-religious sentiment. He conflates 'liberal' and 'atheist'. The two are not synonomous. Many materialists/atheists are of a more libertarian/Randian persuasion, while there are religious liberals, believe it or not.

Also, Godwin and many who post to this blog present a caricatured, even hysterical perspective on Islam (such as referring to this religion as a 'death cult' Whoa!)while holding the West, particularly the U.S. and Israel, blameless and free of sin.

In this worldview, which appreciates no irony or nuance, evil lies without, not within (except for the subversive left). What B.S!

Isn't introspection a major part of spiritual development? By focusing on an external enemy, we can ignore our own faults and become fearfully obsessed with that Islamic terrorist, which is what the Bush administration wants. Fear got this guy elected, and the Republicans are exploiting this fear to cover their own failures (Iraq, corruption) and pull the wool over our eyes so that they can remain in control.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but shouldn't we recognize the potential evil within ourselves and recognize the inequity and iniquity within our own society, so that we can do something about it? That is the point that the left is trying to make.

9/18/2006 08:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home