Are Atheists An Oppressed Minority?

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Having gone to high school as a devout Evangelical Christian in a public high school on Long Island, this video is somewhat surreal to me.  A world where everybody prays and atheists are shunned and harrassed?  I would never have believed it in high school.  But the truth is that both committed religious people and convinced atheists share something in common—the majority in the middle has little use or sympathy for (and not to mention a lot of suspicion of) such adamant thinking and has a tendency to alienate those of us on both extremes of the spectrum as much as we alienate each other.

So—I am eager to see more people accept their atheism as a good thing.  I want vigorously to challenge the stranglehold that deference to the supposedly unquestionable goodness of “faith” has on public discourse.  I am appalled by so many theocrats in our country trying to institutionalize Christianity wherever they can worm it in.  I am extremely worried about the growth of theocratic influence in Europe with the growth of non-secular Islam within its borders.   I completely support and hope for increased public (and private) secularization.  I am bitter about some of the deleterious effects on my life that came from irrational and manipulative religious influence during my first 21 years of life.  I am upset about the closing of kids’ minds through religious training.  And sometimes it gets lonely not knowing too many outright atheists.

But despite all of this, I simply cannot bemoan my “minority” status as a terrible burden.

In the final analysis, I’m passionate about advancing secularism in public (through public policy) and secularism in private (through private persuasion) but I don’t think that these goals require overblowing the real but relatively minor affronts to atheist freedoms in the country.

We may be marginalized and they may try to vilify us when we dissent to the general consensus that faith must be ever genuflected to as an inherently good thing (even as dogmatic religion is widely denounced)—but these are not the sorts of slights to try and claim oppressed minority status for. Not in a place as free as North America anyway, or at least in not in my own experience. But I live in the Northeast, so maybe I underestimate what harsher pressures may exist elsewhere.

Aside from the occasional jackass remark like George Bush claiming atheists can’t be real American citizens, I don’t feel terribly persecuted. I study and teach at a remarkable Jesuit university which not once in 9 years has made a single gesture, either through its administration or its faculty or student body to make me feel unwelcome to speak my mind freely.  Really, nowhere in my life have I been treated unnecessarily rudely for holding unpopular atheistic opinions.

I was teased pretty unsympathetically as an Evangelical in a secular high school on Long Island, but since then I have enjoyed the benefits of living in a free, Western secularized country and would feel like a thin-skinned ingrate to complain of mistreatment based on my particular experience.  That’s of course not to judge other people’s interpretations of their experiences, about which I know next to nothing.  I feel quite bad for the girl in this video because her sense of ostracization and rejection is palpably painful.  And maybe the midwest is as hard on atheists as Long Island was on an Evangelical.

What I think, in the final analysis, is that as Americans we are eclectic enough in ethnicity and philosophy that probably every one of us is only a 10-25% minority of the population in some way.  Maybe you’re a vegetarian or chronically ill or Jewish or black or gay or Mormon or old or autistic or atheistic or celibate or Islamic or a feminist activist or a socially maladroit genius or a pro-life activist or physically challenged or painfully shy or foreign born or a victim of sexual abuse or a convict or a devoted fundamentalist Evangelical Christian or a Vanilla Ice fan or maybe you’re the son of a Kenyon goat herder-cum-economist and a woman from Kansas and you are the first African American president in the history of the United States of America.

No matter who you are, my guess it that it’s more likely than not that there’s something about your life history, your identity, your life choices, your ethnicity,  or your beliefs that makes you feel acutely conscious that you’re not that Average American we hear so much about in the media and from politicians.  And that there are social assumptions and expectations that chafe at you and make you feel alienated, torn between who you are and what the society you belong to is.  This is the rub of multiculturalism.  It would theoretically be a whole lot easier, but far less rich, if we were all religiously, racially, morally and philosophically homogeneous.  Being fundamentally different in identity or life experience in any way can tear at your sense of belonging and make the 90% you share with your neighbor seem not as important as the 10% that separates you from her.

But as for me, despite being committed to the cause of secularism and of raising consciousness among atheists—when it comes to the larger society, I try to focus on the 90% I have in common and to remember how alienating it is to feel like  a 10% when it comes to relating to other people’s 10% experience rather than worry about complaining about my own.

Okay, having had my Kumbaya moment, here’s my favorite anti-religious screed propaganda from my favorite youtube vlogger :)

YouTube Preview Image

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • http://www.carprepinc.com Oblio

    Thanks… agree completely! I live in Orange County, CA and try to get letters published in the local OC Register op/ed as often as possible to show a lone freethinker’s voice in an ocean of religious conservative rethuglican ignorance. One of my fave authors, Robert Heinlein, wrote a novella in 1940 titled ‘If This Goes On…’ about a future USA where religion has become the government, ruled by The Prophet, and freethinkers are slaughtered and imprisoned for heresy. When a newcomer to the secular underground questions theeir motives, a leader says “When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, ‘This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know,’ the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything – you can’t conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.” These words written over 60 years ago are more relevant now than ever. Just found your blog recently and now pop in every day. Many thanks… keep up the pressure, baby!

  • Dan Fincke

    Thanks so much, Oblio, I love the quote and I really appreciate the support. Let us know if your letters get posted anywhere that we can link to them!

    And remember to add your comments whenever you have responses to the posts and to send your favorite posts to friends or facebook or digg, etc. so that word spreads about what we’re doing here.

    Thanks again!

  • Dave Smith

    Maybe, as you mentioned, it was because I grew up in the northeast, but I had a similar experience in high school. To be honest I don’t know anyone else in my class of ~100 who was a Christian, at least in an evangelical sense. Religion was pretty much a private thing and all activities were entirely secular. I didn’t appreciate that fact at the time, but looking back, I’m quite thankful for my public school education. I see that now as the roots of my more “liberal” beliefs, and where my rational worldview started to take shape – despite the fact that it took me many more years to actually shed my religious faith. My parents (apparently after seeing how badly it screwed me up lol) sent my sisters to a private Christian school, and who knows how that would have changed me. Childhood indoctrination is a powerful thing.

  • Tim Nelson

    I did not expect a Vanilla Ice reference, but lo and behold, there it was. Kudos Dan.

    -Tim

  • Dan Fincke

    1991 forever, Tim.

  • http://hypocritical4u.wordpress.com hypocritical4u

    Discourse requires subjectivity acknowledging itself as such, rather than as something more. I recommend the following post: http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/objective-vs-subjective-a-matter-of-biblical-hyperbole/

    • Daniel Fincke

      Sorry, but I found that article to be pretty worthless and sophomoric. Let’s just say that if one of my students submitted it, the grade wouldn’t be pretty.

  • LL

    Interesting read. I live in Australia, which is much more lackadaisical about religion or its lack (except, unfortunately, among our politicians).

    I enjoyed the list of possible minorities … reminds me of a contest a workmate and I had along those lines years ago, as to which of us was a smaller minority. He was Aboriginal/ambiguous sexuality/green eyes and a few other things I forget; I was Slav/Irish/Scots/German, left-handed and with ocular hypertension.

    I think we called it a draw …

  • William Grice

    This gave me a lot to think about. I really enjoyed it. Keep up the good work in general

  • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

    I just read the article above because I’ve been curious about the argument that “atheists are an oppressed minority”; I came across it while researching the topic on the internet. I suddenly realized that you and I had a conversation before on the question of atheism, where I made some critical remarks about some atheists’ lack of critical thinking. As before, I find your takes intellectually very honest. In one of my forums I’ve been having an argument with an atheist friend of mine — and one of the arguments he makes from time to time is to claim “oppressed minority status” for atheists, analogous to the struggles of African Americans in this country to gain their full rights. First of all, as another friend pointed out, one cannot tell an atheist from looking at him or her. The same cannot be maintained for a black person. As much as I think there’s a measure of truth to what he says, I cannot help but feel that the claim is overblown, and that it is psychologically manipulative. In the more recent exchange we had, he took issue with Edward Feser’s lampooning of the “Reason Rally” as a form of contradictio in adjecto, analogous to saying “chastity orgy” and such. The one thing Feser never said was that atheists shouldn’t get together. Feser’s distaste for big rallies extends beyond atheist rallies to include any gathering where individual thinking stops and group-think begins. So, I was perplexed as to why my friend would read that into what Feser was saying. He ended up calling Feser an “asshole” because ATHEISTS ARE AN OPPRESSED MINORITY as AFRICAN AMERICANS are or have been. First, I don’t deny that atheists haven’t been persecuted, discriminated against, oppressed–but to make this claim without any qualification makes the claim anachronistic. I think it is true that there are still obstacles to atheists attaining the office of president if they declare themselves atheists. And if one lives in the south west, one who is an atheist would certainly feel alienated and oppressed. But this is not so everywhere. Religious people are also discriminated against. Even to be a moderate religious person makes one worse than the extremist fundamentalists because it “enables” their actions as Sam Harris argues. The New Atheist movement is becoming an ideological movement, not just a purely philosophical movement. They are becoming much more vocal. Hitchens encourages contempt for any religious believer. The irony of this is that the purported objection against so much religion is the group-think quality of it, the bigotry religion fosters in so many believers, and so on, but somehow, it is OK the same to THEM, i.e., the religious folks. If that is not a double-standard, I don’t know what is. I’m a believer in a qualified sense (my convictions rest more on philosophical grounds than mere “feeling” or “faith”), and I have sought to reach out to atheists in solidarity, but I have met quite a bit of resistance. I suppose I’d be considered an “enabler” of more extreme types. Another problem that I encounter in the discussions with some atheists is a tendency to lump all considerations against religion and theism in the same category and reject the whole of it a priori. The metaphysical and epistemological considerations get lumped with more political and ideological considerations, i.e., “we’re an oppressed minority, so how dare you criticize us?” I always find it ironic when an ardent exponent of “reason and science” doesn’t respect the most rudimentary rules of critical thinking under the claim that we should be able to say whatever we want without being criticized simply because we’re “oppressed.” I understand that there’s a human side to all of this, that human emotions do get in the way of clear thinking (and this is not limited to atheists or religious people alone). My goal in my forums has been to encourage respectful dialogue between the different sides. So many of the discussions are so full of a partisan spirit where the only goal becomes to demonize or make the other side look bad or ill-informed. Someone recently remarked to me that I seemed to be “annoyed by atheists in general.” That’s far from the truth. Lately I’ve been very taken by Quentin Smith and atheists like him who engage the other side in respectful dialogue. That’s what we need to do more of. Like you said, we all feel different and can therefore claim some minority status based on that “10% difference” you alluded to. There’s no need to magnify that. I am from Chile and ever since I came to this country, I’ve felt pretty lonely as far as interaction with people from my own culture is concerned. But I have learned to find common ground with people. I think intelligent and respectful theists and atheists (or agnostics) can find common ground as well and learn to live with each other in a cooperative and sympathetic spirit. Why do we have to feel so threatened by what someone else believes or disbelieves? It seems to me that the depth of our doubt about what we think we should believe is inversely proportional to the zeal we put forth in trying to convince others about that which we may be in doubt about. Another thing I’ve found very curious is how some atheists self-describe as “free thinkers.” Nobody is totally free from their presuppositions in their thinking, so the expression is inaccurate and seems more intended to imply something else. Anyway, I enjoyed reading your article and thank you once again for your candidness.

    • John Morales

      My goal in my forums has been to encourage respectful dialogue between the different sides.
      [...]
      But I have learned to find common ground with people. I think intelligent and respectful theists and atheists (or agnostics) can find common ground as well and learn to live with each other in a cooperative and sympathetic spirit.

      Bah.

      Your goal raises my hackles.

      So many of the discussions are so full of a partisan spirit where the only goal becomes to demonize or make the other side look bad or ill-informed.

      Can you give me an example?

      The New Atheist movement is becoming an ideological movement, not just a purely philosophical movement. They are becoming much more vocal. Hitchens encourages contempt for any religious believer. The irony of this is that the purported objection against so much religion is the group-think quality of it, the bigotry religion fosters in so many believers, and so on, but somehow, it is OK the same to THEM, i.e., the religious folks. If that is not a double-standard, I don’t know what is.

      Oh, I see what you mean.

      Yes, tsk tsk and all that respectful regret for such ironies.

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      John, you’ve made your modus operandi quite obvious, and the assumptions you make are completely unjustified.

      I never said that my advocacy of decency and open communication had to entail zero conflict. Conflict does arise; I can testify from my own experience.

      The “bah,” the “so?” and “I spit on your…” shows that you are a pretty nasty person. It would never have occurred to me to respond to anything you said like that, but I see that your intent is to vituperate.

      As far as what you say about “poisoning the well” and “decrying what you practice” — it seems to me that that’s precisely what you’re doing. You did not enter this dialogue respectfully. From the very start, by highlighting what you “objected” to, you made it clear that your intention was not to have a dialogue and work out differences of opinion. You selective reading of what I said shows to me that you’re not interested in having a conversation.

      Your “I won’t compromise” attitude simply exposes what you want to do, and quite frankly, we do not need to be having this dialogue if you are not going to show the minimum of respect. To point out what I am doing in response to your objectionable responses is a ploy I’m not going to fall for.

      Lastly, my comment was not addressed to you; it was addressed to the writer of this blog. For you to jump in like that and make underhanded remarks just goes to show that you’re a jerk.

      But I do: I spit on your “cooperative and sympathetic spirit”, I note your poisoning of the well, I note you decry what you practice.

      (Also, sticking to the common ground whilst avoiding conflict is just compromise via compartmentalisation, and your advocacy of it grates)

    • John Morales

      Lastly, my comment was not addressed to you; it was addressed to the writer of this blog. For you to jump in like that and make underhanded remarks just goes to show that you’re a jerk.

      Since you claim to have learned to find common ground with people, how does this pose a problem?

      (Are jerks not people?)

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      John,

      You are really playing games. Do you want to quit it? I do like to find common ground with decent, open, honest people. It’s a relief when I find it. You, on the other hand, are proving impossible to have a decent conversation with because you insist on this game. I really don’t want to have this conversation with you. Please respect that. You have done absolutely nothing to advance this conversation in a positive direction. You have trampled and “spat” on my intentions to reach out. What what other option do you leave me? None. And please quit quoting me. It’s grating.

    • John Morales

      I do like to find common ground with decent, open, honest people.

      This is not your original claim, is it? :)

      I really don’t want to have this conversation with you. Please respect that.

      Takes two to have a conversation, you know. :)

      And please quit quoting me. It’s grating.

      When your own words are grating to you, it should sound a warning.

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      It’s not that my own words are grating. It’s your lack of substance and argumentation. Your snarkiness. Your cowardice. You’ve been totally attacking me from the side. You have an agenda in discrediting me and my intentions in regard to my willingness to reach out to bona fide atheists. You have subverted the conversation from the very beginning by expressing yourself disrespectfully and sarcastically, by attempting to turn everything around and distorting what I am trying to say. What you have been doing is condescending, pure and simple. And when you “highlight,” I find it grating because I see a false mirror. It’s my message through a false mirror.

      As to your “takes two to have a conversation” — it should be obvious that I don’t want to have this “conversation” with you because you have made it impossible since the beginning. You could have given me some logical or rational grounds against what I said; instead I got an “I spit on your…” How is one to have a “conversation” with you? And why should I want to have a conversation with you?

      And it doesn’t matter what my original claim was. I am making additional claims. “Respect” is a necessary condition. It seems to me that the author of this blog is promoting something similar. I’m puzzled by the game that you insist on playing with me. If you want to have a discussion about something of substance, I’d be happy to proceed. But if you are going to distort and cherry pick everything I say, I’m afraid I’m just wasting my time. I am all for rational discussions. I’m not for what you’re doing.

    • John Morales

      I always find it ironic when an ardent exponent of “reason and science” doesn’t respect the most rudimentary rules of critical thinking under the claim that we should be able to say whatever we want without being criticized simply because we’re “oppressed.”

      You said stuff, you got criticised, now you complain.

      (Am I oppressing you?)

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      I didn’t say anything about “oppression” and I wouldn’t pull that card. But it seems to me that you want me to say something like that and victimize myself. I won’t because I am not a victim. Yes, I said stuff, much of which upon reflection is valid.

      And what you have done is not a “critique” or a constructive criticism. And why shouldn’t I address the patent lack of respect on your part? I wrote quite a bit in my first post, so for you to highlight two or three lines and express your sarcasm by totally ignoring what I said in context shows that you do not care, and are just trying to ridicule and be a troll.

      And you go on quoting me and trying to present yourself as if you were bringing up valid points. What you have done must be the intellectually most passive-aggressive tactic I’ve seen someone use.

      And this is for Dan: whatever you think my motives were in entering this dialogue, from reading some of the other stuff here, I would have thought that this was a place for respectful dialogue.

      By not saying anything, Dan, I’m beginning to feel not welcome, and that’s really sad. My motives are sincere. In my forum for atheist and theists, it would never occur to me to treat the atheists there in such despicable way as John Morales has treated me.

      Now John Morales wants to give the false appearance of playing fair and making just critical remarks.

      Well, I have seen very little of a deductive argument, or any argument where I see a conclusion attached to premises. When I criticize something, I never say: I spit on your ideas. I do not mind people challenging my ideas on rational grounds.

      But when someone starts to attack me from the “side,” by sarcasm and evasiveness, I cannot help feel that an injustice is being perpetrated. If anybody was behaving like that in my blog or forum, whether it be a theist, an atheist, etc, I’d say something.

      Of course, what John Morales is doing here is attack what he perceives to be my position while he hides his own. That’s a very cowardly way of arguing someone.

      And no, I don’t feel oppressed, nor victimized. I can defend my arguments, and I am not a person to retreat. I don’t like to be addressed in this way. I didn’t come in here, and say, “I spit on everything that’s written here; I spit on all that was said in the comments. Bah!” What kind of argument would that be? That would be the epitome of arrogance and presumption.

      No one is excused, on any grounds, to be disrespectful. I respect people’s freedom of speech to say whatever they want; but their freedom of speech does not exempt them from criticism.

      And John, one final remark. Your whole implicit “argument” rests on a logical fallacy (tu quoque). You might want to do better than that. I’m not going to be fooled by your fallacies and ploys.

      “Tu quoque(Latin for “you, too” or “you, also”) or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone’s point of view based on criticism of the person’s inconsistency, and not the position presented.[2] Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument.”

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      And this is for Dan: whatever you think my motives were in entering this dialogue, from reading some of the other stuff here, I would have thought that this was a place for respectful dialogue.

      By not saying anything, Dan, I’m beginning to feel not welcome, and that’s really sad.

      It is a place for respectful dialogue. John Morales does not speak for me. I can’t be responsible to point it out every time I disagree with one of my commenters. My views are known from the post above and the entire blog. Morales is free to disagree with them and to do so sarcastically if that’s part of expressing the content of his agreement in form.

      I set the best tone for respectful dialogue as I can and usually that is what happens without any need to ban people or referee disputes on my part. If you find that Morales argues passive aggressively, eliptically, rudely, and in bad faith (and in the above he certainly has), then simply ignore him and move on. You don’t need to get the last word. Onlookers can see with their own eyes what’s going on.

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      John,

      I’m curious about something else, since you insist on quoting me. What rule of critical thinking or logic have I broken? What I said about atheists was qualified. Not all atheists are irrational. Some atheists do break rudimentary rules of logic. I can provide you with a list of such logical fallacies.

    • Roberto

      Dan,

      Point taken. You have a very different protocol than I, but I respect what you said there. You’re right; I’ll let others judge. I don’t want to be entangled in these kinds of conversations. On the other hand, I welcome friendly debate.

  • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

    John Morales,

    I wish you quit the sarcasm. Why not engage what I have actually said rather than cleverly insinuate things? You have said very little about what I said, so why bother to respond?

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      P.S:

      John Moralez:
      Your condescending sarcasm does very little to address one of the issues I brought up. I don’t think that’s the case with Dan Fincke from what I’ve read here thus far. I spoke very candidly. I spoke with no insults, and then you come and “Bah” me as if I were some idiot. That’s really unfortunate, and any rational person would probably agree that your tactics are patently nasty. Good luck!

    • John Morales

      Your condescending sarcasm does very little to address one of the issues I brought up.

      It’s commentary, and it was largely just quoting you.

      I spoke with no insults, and then you come and “Bah” me as if I were some idiot.

      So?

      But to the point: it was what I quoted that I emphatically dismissed.

      That’s really unfortunate, and any rational person would probably agree that your tactics are patently nasty. Good luck!

      Weren’t you referring to irony and hypocrisy, above?

      (Because that sure looks like condescending sarcasm)

    • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

      John,

      I don’t see how what I wrote contains hypocrisy and irony. Yes, I did allude to SOME of the hypocrisy I detect in some of the New Atheists; I did not mean to extend the generalization to all atheists. As to what you said or didn’t say, it’s pretty obvious that you’re being dismissive and sarcastic (ex: “bah!” “So?”). Why don’t you say what you have in mind rather than beating around the bush?

    • John Morales

      Why don’t you say what you have in mind rather than beating around the bush?

      But I do: I spit on your “cooperative and sympathetic spirit”, I note your poisoning of the well, I note you decry what you practice.

      (Also, sticking to the common ground whilst avoiding conflict is just compromise via compartmentalisation, and your advocacy of it grates)

  • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

    “So emotions can be employed in ways that are consistent with helping people reason better. But resorting to name calling is bypassing reason and attacking people in a personal, disrespectful, uncivil way. Religious people deserve no more respect than any one else. I am not saying religious beliefs are at all off limits to the same aggressive queries and critical analysis that all other consequential (and even many inconsequential) beliefs should be. Religion deserves no special deference and has no right to insist any one hold anything sacrosanct. But religious people also deserve no less respect than anyone else. It is the moral-political hallmark of Enlightened civilization that everyone is treated with respect regardless of their personal merits. Respecting people does not mean having in every context to humor their bad ideas or soft-pedal one’s critical remarks about them. Respect, in many cases, means believing that someone is strong enough and smart enough to handle honest, well-reasoned, well-intentioned criticism. People who we pander to because we have contempt or fear for their supposed inabilities to handle what we really think are not people we respect but ones we patronize.”

    This nicely encapsulates what I had in mind and what I am striving for.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      This nicely encapsulates what I had in mind and what I am striving for.

      Thanks, Roberto. What you quoted is from this post, not the one above.

    • John Morales

      But religious people also deserve no less respect than anyone else.

      Only arguendo, not a priori.

      (Already we know that they’re religious)

  • http://ontologicalstatus.blogspot.com/ Roberto

    Dan,

    I am aware it was from a different post. But it fit nicely with the spirit of what I had in mind.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Okay, but other readers might not, so I put the link.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X