If the evangelical mainstream wants me to view the religious right as marginal, then they should do more to marginalize the religious right

Mainstream evangelicals generally do not identify with the tone and emphasis of the religious right. When people like me criticize the religious right, these mainstream evangelicals often complain that such criticisms overemphasize the influence of a vocal, but marginal, minority that does not represent the views of most evangelicals.

That’s the complaint voiced here by Timothy Dalrymple and repeated, ad nauseum, as a central organizing grievance of sites like Get Religion.

There are two very large problems with this complaint:

1) The religious right is not at all marginal — either within evangelicalism as a whole or within America as a whole; and

2) the religious right is, in fact, representative of mainstream evangelicalism.

Every year, the leadership of the Republican Party goes to speak at, to court, to be seen at and to appease the Values Voter Summit. This year, every GOP candidate for the party’s nomination for president spoke at the conference. They had no other option. To fail to show up and please that crowd would be to surrender any hope for securing the nomination.

And these candidates were not the ones calling the shots. The Values Voter Summit never features a so-called “Sister Souljah moment” in which a candidate distances himself or herself from the constituency represented there. The candidates and congressional leaders who speak there are enthusiastically obsequious. It is the religious right who defines the boundaries for what those candidates may say there — and for what they may say elsewhere on the campaign trail, or even in office — and not the other way around.

That doesn’t make the religious right an all-powerful cabal pulling the strings behind every move of the government or even behind every move of the Republican Party, but it’s absurd to speak of its influence as “marginal.” Specific groups or organizations that are part of the larger whole of the religious right may be more or less influential, but it’s just silly to try to hand-wave away the influence and importance of this group as inconsequential or as somehow less consequential than “mainstream evangelical” institutions like Christianity Today or Fuller Seminary.

The religious right is primarily a creature of media — radio, television, Internet, direct mail. It’s an incessant media machine that cranks out its message 24/7/365. That stuff reaches more people than anything coming out of the graying institutions of mainstream evangelicalism. And that stuff works — maybe not on everyone, but on a good-sized chunk of us. The religious right has a bigger budget, a higher platform, a louder megaphone than the evangelical mainstream. The “mainstream” pastor’s 40-minute weekly sermon is up against hours and hours of radio and cable TV programming, plus inboxes filled with daily email “alerts” and mailboxes filled with fundraising letters and emotional appeals. Those who would dismiss all of that as marginal or inconsequential are simply out of touch with the media world that evangelicals are swimming in during the hours they’re not in church.

One could make a good case that the religious right is far more influential within evangelicalism as a whole than any given set of more mainstream, “representative” institutions. I won’t try to make that case because I don’t think it matters which has the greater influence, given that both are influencing evangelicals in the same direction. The supposedly more typical and representative institutions of the evangelical mainstream do not disagree with the substance or content of the religious right’s agenda, only with its tone and its emphasis. Chuck Colson is both a leading figure of the religious right and a columnist for Christianity Today. His agenda is shared by both groups and so they share his services as well.

The supposed distinction between the “not-hyper-politicized” mainstream evangelicals and the religious right parallels the supposed distinction between the mainstream “Republican establishment” and talk-radio bomb-throwers like Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s tone and his tendency toward outrageous statements may make the GOP establishment uncomfortable, but they don’t disagree with him in general. And if they ever do disagree with him on some particular detail, they’d never dare do so publicly. He exerts a pull and an influence on them, but they do not exert any such pull or influence on him.

And this is what ultimately makes the claim that the religious right is “marginal” such utter hogwash. The leaders of the religious right are not marginal in mainstream evangelicalism because they are never marginalized. The very occasional, timid clarification of “well, now, most of us wouldn’t put it quite that way …” is not the same as a denunciation. And mainstream evangelicalism will never denounce even the Liar Tony Perkins or any of the other egregious charlatans of the religious right. They will never denounce them because they are afraid of them. And they will never denounce them because, for the most part, they agree with them.

The religious right is not representative of the broader mainstream of evangelicalism, we are told, but this claim is almost never backed up with an explanation of how it is they differ in substance rather than just in style. The religious right, meanwhile, is constantly using its massive media megaphone to assert that it does represent all evangelicals everywhere. And that assertion stands unchallenged by any full-throated, substantial denial.

The longer mainstream evangelicals wait to make such a denial, the more aggressive and vehement it will need to be. After decades of mealy-mouthed complacency, it will take something dramatic to provide the requisite shock to the system. Maybe a CT cover, all black, with white block letters reading, “STFU Tony Perkins, You Do Not Speak For Us.”

If I see a cover like that, then I will believe that Perkins is a marginal figure because I will have seen him marginalized.

That, of course, will never happen. But barring such a bold stroke, the only other hope would be the sort of incremental marginalization that Conor Friedersdorf argues that the conservative establishment ought to be applying to Rush Limbaugh.

Again, that relationship is precisely parallel to the one between the religious right and the evangelical mainstream. The conservative establishment complains when it is caricatured as nothing more than the obnoxious attitudes and wisecracks of Rush Limbaugh, but as Friedersdorf notes, this complaint rings hollow when they have allowed — and enjoyed — his ascendancy as their primary spokesperson. The conservative complaints Friedersdorf summarizes precisely parallel the “mainstream evangelical” complaints voiced by Dalrymple and by Get Religion.

The solution to their complaint is not to get everyone else to pretend that the religious right is of no consequence. The solution to their complaint is to speak up for themselves in the way that Friedersdorf prescribes:

There is a larger point to be made than the old news that [Rush Limbaugh] says indefensible things. In that spirit, I’d like to conclude this post by remarking on Limbaugh’s corrupting influence. We’ve witnessed more than enough controversies like this, where no one is willing to defend the talk radio host’s words, to know his public character and effect on political discourse. We’re not talking about a couple slip ups for which he’s apologized and should be forgiven. The man willfully traffics in odious commentary and has for years and years.

Shame on him, but that isn’t where it ends. George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush ought to be embarrassed that they invited Limbaugh to the White House.  The Claremont Institute, whose work I often respect, ought to be mortified that they sullied their Statesmanship Award by bestowing it upon Limbaugh. Shame on National Review for celebrating one of conservatism’s most controversial figures in a symposium. … Shame on The Heritage Foundation for sponsoring Limbaugh’s radio show, and on the Media Research Center and Human Events for honoring Limbaugh’s excellence … and the list goes on, including the millions of people who support his radio show because they agree with Limbaugh’s ideology, even though they’d be outraged if a liberal trafficked in similarly poisonous rhetoric.

Many conservatives complain, with good reason, when they’re caricatured as racially insensitive purveyors of white anxiety politics who traffic in absurd, paranoid attacks on their political opponents. Yet many of the most prominent brands in the conservative movement elevate a man guilty of those exact things as a “statesman” whose civility and humility ought to inspire us! In doing so, they’ve created a monster, one who knows that so long as his ratings stay high, he can say literally anything and be feted as an intellectual and moral role model. So the outrages arrive at predictable intervals. And Americans hear about them and think badly of the right.

Movement conservatives, if you seek integrity in American life, if you seek civility, if you seek converts, tear down this man’s lies! He hasn’t any integrity or self respect left to lose. But you do.

If you want to be seen as separate and distinct from the religious right, then separate and distinguish yourself from the religious right. If you want the religious right to be regarded as marginal, then marginalize them. Tear down their lies.

  • Kirala

     But Fred, that might force us to consider whether we want to marginalize the religious right! And we might not like the answer!

    “Because if this is going to be a Christian nation sect that doesn’t help the poor align with the religious right, either we’ve got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are we are just as visible as they are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition we need to visibly take a stand that excludes them, and then admit that we just don’t wanna do it.” -Remixed Stephen Colbert.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Mainstream evangelicals generally do not identify with the tone and emphasis of the religious right. When people like me criticize the religious right, these mainstream evangelicals often complain that such criticisms overemphasize the influence of a vocal, but marginal, minority that does not represent the views of most evangelicals.

    Yet oddly, pollsters find that evangelicals often vote as a bloc. They tend to vote as a group, and their voting patterns are fairly consistent with the views of the vocal, visable elements.

    Foreign aid, social safety nets, health care reform? Evangelicals vote against these things as a group.

    Homosexual rights, forced-pregnancy-legislation, watering down public school science cirriculum? Evangelicals vote for these things as a group.

    Dalrymple’s article is especially odious in trying to have his cake and eat it too. He says evangelicals as a group aren’t “hyper-politicized”, but then he also says that “liberals tend to resent evangelicals for voting conservative”. Which is it? How can evangelicals be a relatively unified voting block that ” tend to support the causes they oppose” and somehow not represent a particularly narrow political viewpoint?

  • Matri

    How can evangelicals be a relatively unified voting block that ” tend to support the causes they oppose” and somehow not represent a particularly narrow political viewpoint?

    Ain’t Cognitive Dissonance a beautiful thing?

  • Joshua

    A good few years ago, I left pentecostal and baptist denominations and, by degrees, wound up in the Anglican church. (Episcopal, in American.) Frankly, it saved me a whole lot of hassle and disagreement, and, ultimately, my faith.

    Previously, my attitude was sort of, “my church, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” Great idea, in theory, as many ideas are, in theory.

    I’m happier now. They probably are, too.

  • Lori

     Again, that relationship is precisely parallel to the one between the religious right and the evangelical mainstream. The conservative establishment complains when it is caricatured as nothing more than the obnoxious attitudes and wisecracks of Rush Limbaugh, but as Friedersdorf notes, this complaint rings hollow when they have allowed — and enjoyed — his ascendancy as their primary spokesperson. The conservative complaints Friedersdorf summarizes precisely parallel the “mainstream evangelical” complaints voiced by Dalrymple and by Get Religion.  

     

    Conservatives are never going to marginalize Limbaugh as long as there are still so many Conservatives who claim not to understand that it’s racist to call an African American “uppity”. 

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/11/yep-uppity-racist/45321/

    The whole thing is made exponentially worse by the fact that Rush called the First Lady “uppity” to justify a bunch of morons at a NASCAR race conforming to every negative stereotype you’ve ever heard about NASCAR fans by booing Mrs. Obama. She and Dr. Biden were there promoting their initiative to help veterns find jobs. You know, the people who served in the military the NASCAR crowd claims to love so much. 

    If Conservatives don’t want to be seen as hypocritical, racist idiots they A) need to stop acting like hypocritical, racist idiots and B) stop kissing the ass of the King of the Idiots when he’s flapping as hard as he can, fanning the flames of stupidity. And one other thing—protip: pointing out that Rush Limbaugh said an incredibly racist thing is not a “left-wing hit.”

    By the same token, if Evangelicals like Dalrymple don’t want people to see them as hated-filled, anti-intellectual and hyper-politicized they might want to step up and actually speak out against Evangelicals marriage to the GOP. Not just things like the hateful Values Voter Summit* nonsense that Fred pointed out, but lovely events like the GOP candidates “debate” sponsored by SPL-center certified anti-gay hate group the American Family Association. 

    I put “debate” in quotes because it wasn’t actually a debate at all. It was a tent meeting where candidates for the highest office in our country tearfully told their Evangelical-friendsly conversion stories and tried to outdo each other on hating teh ghays. As one guy noted on twitter: I don’t know how many more ways there are to say “I don’t like gays.” They’re going to have to try interpretive dance soon. 

    None of that ish happened by accident. It happened because mainstream Evangelicals are up to their necks in politics. If Dalrymple doesn’t like having to admit that then he needs to stop whining and do something to change it. In the mean time the rest of us out here in the reality based community are under no obligation to pretend that things are not as they are, simply in order to avoid hurting his delicate little feelings.

    *I hate that name with the white hot heat of a thousand fiery suns. We all vote our values, assholes. Stop trying to act like you’re the only ones. 

  • Matri

    protip: pointing out that Rush Limbaugh said an incredibly racist thing is not a “left-wing hit.”

    No use pointing it out, Lori. It’s become their S.O.P. now.

    It’s “christian” and “american” to use every racial epithet in the book (and then some) to talk about and pray for the death of someone who isn’t One Of Them, but it is “bipartisan”, “divisive” and “hate-mongering” to call them out on it.

  • Joshua

    I don’t know how many more ways there are to say “I don’t like gays.” They’re going to have to try interpretive dance soon.

    A bunch of middle-aged or elderly white guys trying to depict homosexuality and their hatred of it by dancing.

    Not my cup of tea, to put it mildly, but it might appeal to the fanbase of the Office. The horror, the horror.

  • Tonio

    Those pollsters are probably making the mistake that the media makes, or else the media uses its own terms when reporting on the poll results. That mistake is using “evangelical” to mean fundamentalist, or to mean a right-wing Christian. Either way it’s political definition that has little to do with theology.

  • friendly reader

    Didn’t Michell Bachmann and her husband already try that?

  • Xian-x

    Thank you, Fred. As long as Evangelicals who claim not to support the hard right continue to imply through their words and deeds that the hard right consists of “brothers and sisters in Christ” with whom they (ostensibly) disagree Evangelicalism as an institution will continue to reinforce and help perpetuate the injustices of the hard right.

    Someone who thinks God wants his followers to bully anyone is not  your brother or sister in Christ. Someone who thinks God approves of torture is not your brother or sister in Christ. Someone who thinks that God condemns nations that try to feed the hungry or care for the sick is not your brother or sister in Christ.

    Protestant theologian James Cone once wrote that morality of American Christianity is so immoral that it’s almost impossible for even its most sensitive adherents to recognize the gross injustices that American Christianity perpetuates. It’s time for American Christians to start recognizing those injustices–and to start very loudly denouncing them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jonathan-Pelikan/100000903137143 Jonathan Pelikan

    A long time ago, dipshit grifter (and thus perfect representative of conservatives in this country) Sarah Palin used the term ‘blood libel’ without one single iota of understanding about what that term actually meant or the historical context behind it. I wasn’t really aware of it, either, because our media is completely broken, until I heard the Professional Left Podcast about it.

    Basically, in Ye Olden Days (hopefully), for Christianity to function, it needed the same two elements as a reactor; the molten core of energy, and the leadership and intelligentsia to act as coolant so the core doesn’t melt down and destroy everything. Without both aspects, the system wouldn’t work. The Pope had to make sure that the angry country preachers didn’t run wild and, say, kill all the Jews… but at the same time, he really couldn’t cast the monsters out of his court. He needed, needed their support. Each generation, thus, things would get a little worse, the boundaries would get pushed, and at the end, the Church moved a little to the side of barbarism. This happened over quite a while.

    The Republican Party is basically the same deal. They’ve always had the Teabaggers in their court, see: Strategy, Southern. They always clung to the lowest orders of our civilization for their power, and tried to stay astride of it, keeping it somewhat under control. Well, over time, the Ultras simply realized who was powering this whole system, and decided to take it over. Hence, the current GOP meltdown.

    I hope evangelicalism isn’t like these examples above, Fred, because that would mean that, no matter what, ‘refuting’ or ‘expelling’ the crazies from your camp will never happen. Without the molten core, there is no camp. It’s George Bush Sr. and his golf club and they poll .25 percent and lose 50 states to 0. I’m sorry, my analogy is probably off-base, but this is the thing that comes to mind for me when you continue to fight against conservatism in this way.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    Those pollsters are probably making the mistake that the media makes, or else the media uses its own terms when reporting on the poll results.

    Except that it’s Dalrymple who’s “making that mistake”. In an article to defend evangelicals against charges of hyper-politicizing, he’s the one identifying them as a voting block.

    It’s a maddeningly tail-chasing argument when you drill down to its core: “liberals” and “the media” misrepresent Evangelicals as being politically ultra-conservative because they’re upset/jealous/angry that evangelicals consistently vote against liberal causes. How do they misrepresent Evangelicals? By painting them as only being unified and caring about gay-hating, evolutionist-hating, abortion-hating zealots. Why do they do that? Because Evangelicals vote as a block against homosexuals, reproductive rights, and seperation of church and state. Why would that kind of consistent pattern (and the absence of similar patterns relating to other issues) be used as a way to identify the values of a particular group? 

    In order to explain why “liberals” and “the media” paint evangelicals in a particular light, Dalrymple admits, more than once, that evangelicals do act in a consistent manner on the specific issues that the media are highlighting.

  • http://twitter.com/Fletchathustra Fletcher Wortmann

    Fundamentalist doesn’t really apply either – a lot of the stuff core to the contemporary “fundamentalist evangelical” subculture has little to no basis in the bible or early christan theology.  Andrew Sullivan calls them “Christianists,” which is a little nitpicky for my taste.  I try to use “doctrinal” or “strict” Christians, which seems accurate without being judgmental.  

  • Lori

    Andrew Sullivan calls them “Christianists,” which is a little nitpicky for my taste. 

    I’m not seeing how “Christianists” is nitpicky. “Christianist” is an analog to “Islamist”. If people are trying to create a government run on their particular interpretation of religious dogma I don’t think it’s picky to call them on it.

    The idea that there is a strong thread in American Christianity that has a great deal in common with (although at this point is still much less radical than) the Taliban and other similar groups makes a lot of people upset and angry, but that doesn’t make the idea in correct.

  • LL

    I wonder if the suckers will ever figure out that they are being had by the money people who actually run the Republican Party.  I doubt it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    They get a lot of what they want — money for faith-based initiatives, same-sex marriage is illegal in most of the country, abortion is often pretty much unavailable in large parts of the country. If they’re being “had”, they have an excellent reason not to complain.

  • Joshua

    Gee, thanks for that.

    Actually, I like that style of dancing far better than any interpretive dance I’ve seen, especially in churches. Maybe she should stick to that instead of politics.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    I wonder if the suckers will ever figure out that they are being had by the money people who actually run the Republican Party.  I doubt it.

    Unfortunately, I think that the monied people who did run the Republican party are now getting worried because they are beginning to realize that all that Christ-mongering they have been doing for votes is starting to catch up with them, and that previous generations of values voters are now becoming some of their rising politicians and they are losing power to them…  

  • Joshua

    Fundamentalist doesn’t really apply either – a lot of the stuff core to the contemporary “fundamentalist evangelical” subculture has little to no basis in the bible or early christan theology.

    The term fundamentalist never has. IIRC from seminary, the originator of the term was an American from the century before last (that’s the best I can do, I’m afraid). He came up with a list of items he viewed as fundamental, and coined the term fundamentalist to denote someone who felt likewise. Early Christian theology doesn’t enter into it much.

    The use of fundamentalist obviously assumes a common understanding of what is fundamental to be useful, but since we all know pretty much what they are on about, I don’t think that’s too much of a problem in practice.

    I try to use “doctrinal” or “strict” Christians, which seems accurate without being judgmental.

    These terms have the same failings as fundamentalist, in that you need a common understanding of what they are being strict or doctrinal about. Since you’ve just coined them, that common understanding doesn’t exist. There are plenty of things I’m strict with myself about, and I believe in plenty of doctrines, including all the traditional ones (ie, ones formed in the 0-500CE period). And that’s the same for many of the Christians I know who are not fundamentalists.

  • MaryKaye

    People in all kinds of groups and organizations sometimes have to face a crisis point where the organization has become harmful and corrupt.  Moral dilemma:  stay and work for reform, risking becoming complicit in the evil? or leave, abandoning your fellows and giving up all power over what the organization does?  There is no one answer that’s always right, in my view.  That’s why it’s a dilemma.

    I’d offer three guidelines:

    (1)  Figure out early exactly how much you are willing to compromise your own values in order to stay.  Get this straight and keep it straight.  If you are fuzzy-minded about this you may wake up one day and realize you have given up far too much.  Being in a bad organization can slowly destroy your own values.  Doing a careful self-analysis early on can help give you tools to recognize when that is happening.

    (2)  As much as possible, give no hostages to your evil organization.  You may feel you need to remain a member, but try not to rely on them for your paycheck, your social circle, your self-esteem, or your family harmony.  Find alternative ways to get your needs met as much as you can.  For example, if you feel you need to belong to a rotten church, don’t rely on the church for your personal spiritual practices.  Form a study group or find a prayer partner.

    (3)  If you decide to leave, do not leave silently.  That is, in my experience, the worst betrayal.  Those who remain will say “No one complained about X” and it is very hard for those who are still fighting to prove that X drove you away–if you never said so.  Don’t be vindictive, but be clear and blunt and honest about why you are leaving.  If there’s still a glimmer of good in your organization this information will be valuable.  If there isn’t, your example may at least inspire others to leave.

    None of this is specific to Christianity.  I learned it in rotten Pagan groups and rotten recreational groups and rotten work situations.  But it really looks to me like organizational Christians need to think about this now–a lot of Christian organizations seem actively evil.  There must be a lot of good people tied up in this mess.  I don’t envy them the situation.

  • Lori

    Speaking of evangelicals and politics, PEW has released a report on spending by religious advocacy groups.

    Religious organizations spend more than $390 million a year on lobbying
    and advocacy, according to a report released today that identifies
    pro-Israel groups as the No. 1 spenders. 

    [snip]

    The number of religious lobbies inside the Beltway has grown steadily in
    recent years, jumping from 158 in 2000 to 211 in 2010, according to the
    report “Lobbying for the Faithful: Religious Advocacy Groups in
    Washington, D.C.” While the economic downturn has depressed spending by
    such groups overall, religious lobbying has spiked in some areas while
    tapering off in others.

    http://www.rollcall.com/news/report_religious_groups_spend_millions_on_advocacy-210496-1.html?pos=hln

    This is a list of groups who recently spent in excess of $10 million/year on advocacy:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/–Luzu7BfPJg/Ts1Q3IMNIII/AAAAAAABMMs/7DeLEk5B4FU/s1600/AdvocacySpending.jpg

    That’s $10 million/year over and above any other work that group does. (Some of the groups are nothing but lobbying efforts, while others have some other work as their primary purpose.)

    A note about the gay lobby with its gay agenda of oppressing Christians: One very conservative Christian organization, Focus On The Family, has annual expenditures that are more than double the annual budgets of the ten largest LGBT rights groups combined.

    But you know, Timothy Dalrymple

    is right. There is no reason other than pure spite and meanness that anyone would think that US Evangelicals are hyper-politicized and overly concerned about the Big 4.

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    Religious identification in polls is almost always self-reported. So given the results, either (a) non-fundamentalist evangelicals are fairly rare, and saying evangelicals tend to vote as a block is not a mistake, or (b) non-fundamentalist evangelicals aren’t willing to call themselves evangelical – and if you aren’t willing to call yourself an evangelical, why should anyone, pollster, media, or otherwise, believe you are?

  • Tonio

    While I agree about the flaws in Dalrymple’s tail-chasing approach, the problem isn’t necessarily his. The media observed a voting bloc of people who self-identified as Christians and used the “evangelical” label, not understanding that evangelicals are actually a fairly diverse group theologically and politically.

    And I think Fred is mistaken that religious right is representative of mainstream evangelicalism. As an outsider to both, my theory is that it only appears that way because evangelicals who don’t support the religious right’s agenda are harder for pollsters to pick out among the demographic weeds. If those evangelicals are anything like Fred, they probably don’t make a big self-righteous show of advertising their faith (I’m looking at you, Tim Tebow), and they probably don’t even cite their religious beliefs as justification for their political positions, at least to pollsters or to non-Christians. Fred writes plenty of entries where it’s not obvious that he’s a Christian. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-McGraw/100001988854074 Patrick McGraw

    A long time ago, dipshit grifter (and thus perfect representative of
    conservatives in this country) Sarah Palin used the term ‘blood libel’
    without one single iota of understanding about what that term actually
    meant or the historical context behind it.

    Which was particularly impressive because Palin claimed to be the victim of “blood libel” when people pointed out how her violent rhetoric may have encouraged gunman Loughner to shoot a Jew in the head.

  • Tonio

    At the time, I thought Palin was simply claiming to be more victimized than Jews. I didn’t know that Giffords is Jewish. In my mind, that makes her use of the term far more worse.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

    People in all kinds of groups and organizations sometimes have to face a
    crisis point where the organization has become harmful and corrupt. 
    Moral dilemma:  stay and work for reform, risking becoming complicit in
    the evil?

    This might be relevant: 
    How to keep someone with you forever
    (A guide to keeping people stuck in a sick system).  More on this

  • Another Chris

    Great comment.

    Just a heads-up: it’s “ad nauseam”, not “ad nauseum”.

  • Another Chris

    Gah. I meant to say “great post”. (Granted, a lot of the comments have also been great.)

  • Rob
  • Victor

    (((This is bad!!!!)))

    Trust me Rob, this guy is a phony and if ya don’t believe U>S (usual sinners) just ask some of our 92% spiritual cells who know some of Victor’s imaginary 7% Jesus Cells butt whatever ya do don’t believe any of Victor’s “ONE” % Cells who go around thinking that they know any of these rational and progressive so called Christians who really get what Jesus was all about if ya know what “I’M” talking about? I hear ya! Give “IT” UP sinner vic cause no body ever really knows what ya talk about! :)Go Figure Fred! :(Peace

    I hear ya! Give “IT” UP sinner vic cause no body ever really knows what ya talk about! :)

    Go Figure Fred! :(

    Peace
    .


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X