Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee | Main | The Family in Uganda »

Agressive Atheism


 

Comments

I think that's missing the point. I'm not sure what the popular argument against aggressive atheism is, but my argument against it is that people are tribal and when they start to attack another group of people (whatever their intentions) then you have the same social atmosphere that makes religion caustic in the first place. Cuba is a perfect example of how atheism can go awry. I don't believe in god, but i distance myself from atheists who say we should be intolerant of those who do believe in god. First of all, the majority of the religious nowadays are so secular they hardly fit the title, and secondly, belief stems from human pathology, and though i am confident we will/are outgrowing belief in god, trying to expedite the process through militant intellectualism is incredibly dangerous and will only serve to sew hate.

Here Condell is saying he's intolerant of many things - homophobia, cruelty to animals, etc. - and most intolerant of saying such things are OK in the name of religion, but not intolerant of religion. Or did I miss that? Prior videos have been more critical of religions and not in the most logical ways, but this one is more on the mark in my opinion.

The message I got from this one is that it should be OK for atheists to express their views and that religious fundies are saying it's aggressive and bad. Thus aggressive atheism is OK, if that is the categorization.

In terms your idea that we'll outgrow belief in god or gods, I hope you're right.

yes, people are not motivated to do terrible things by a lack of belief in gods, but they are motivated to do terrible things by a belief that "religion poisons everything".

but I agree with gypsy sister, Condell, for once, is actually being somewhat reasonable in this case. Still, his vitriol is likely to further promote bigotry among those members of the "religion poisons everything" movement.

Where's the evidence that the "religion poisons everything" crowd (i.e. those like-minded with Hitchens, since he put out the buzz phrase) have done, or even are motivated to do terrible things?

And I still haven't heard anything Condell has said that was so vitriolic that people (not you necessarily, I don't know) are so scandalized about. It's just what Dawkins and others have been telling us all this time. When it's about religion, it's everybody's so touchy, even some atheists and agnostics. I wonder if he was saying the same of Bush or the US government (something like, say, Chomsky) people would be so terrified.

motivated to do terrible things?

he didn't say "terrible things", he said "bigotry" which is something one feels. whether it will lead to action hasn't been determined yet. "new atheism" is "new" in that the playing field is somewhat level for the first time in history. thank you internetz. but don't be so quick to poo-poo the threat of violence inherent in it. it works like this, especially in america : "what, you want to infringe on my liberty? FUCK YOU, I'LL KILL YOU, YOU SONAFABITCH!"

don't even try to tell me this particular emotion is not, even now, being stirred among the plebes. except this time, for atheism.

the fact that condell is english matters not a whit, at this point in the development of global conciousness. he is expressing an almost purely american (maybe french?) love of liberty, in no uncertain terms, and fuck you if you don't like it. if you know what i mean.

A couple of points.

Direct quote (emphasis mine):

they are motivated to do terrible things by a belief that "religion poisons everything"

I'd say that anyone who advocates "terrible things" (I presume that means violent things) is actually in the same category as those who we are standing up against. It's pretty hard to do violence in the name of lack of belief. If you believe that doing violence against religious people is something you should do, then you're actually against what EVERY one of the so-called New Atheists has ever said. I've never heard any one of them advocate any sort of violence.

true. but jesus never advocated violence either and look what happened. it's emotions- shit gets out of control. it's only a matter of time, i gaurantee. in the name of liberty/free speech/democracy/pinkoism :)- you'll see. condell is "bringing the pain". it'll only get worse.

and yes, i'm aware of the two (thats 2) places in the gospels where jesus appears to be, um not quite the pacifist. but the crusaders et.al never needed these passages to justify their horrors. only that they were right and the heathen were wrong. and that's all you'll need, too, in the end. mark my words.

his vitriol is likely to further promote bigotry among those members of the "religion poisons everything" movement.

Like they need help?

I mean after they believe we are going to hell, how much lower can we possibly be in there view?

i think you misunderstood the subject of riley's last sentence.

I must continue to misunderstand.

Still, his vitriol is likely to further promote bigotry among those members of the "religion poisons everything" movement.

Riley's saying Condell's rant will most likely promote bigotry among non-believers. jb and I read your response as you feel Riley is purporting that Condell will promote more bigotry among believers, and that believers already have enough bigotry to go around. jonathan, correct me if i mis-interpreted you.

Oh, Now I understand.

I guess I don't really think of the "religion poisons everything" crowd as bigots and read that backwards.

There is bigotry everywhere and likely some in that group, but the concept riley uses to frame them doesn't seem a bigoted one to me.

There is an honest argument that religion does indeed poison things.

While I agree with the substance of your first sentence, I must disagree with the second.

As someone who has been to Cuba twice (I'm Canadian), and is about to go for a third time, this is simply not the case. Unlike Soviet Russia or N.Korea, the revolutionaries did not ban religion on the island. It is true that the Castro government is mostly secular, and took religion out of the education system, but it did not ban churches or religion. Cuba has always been a very religious society, dating back to the Catholic/Spanish influence via Catholicism. There are also well-known syncretic traditions such as Santeria, brought by slaves from West Africa. In recent decades, Penacostalism has made a mark on the island as well, though not to the same extent as the rest of Latin America. I'd recommend the book Fidel and Religion: Conversations with Frei Betto, if you are interested.

I also don't believe that we will out-grow belief in God. This is something that anthropolgists, sociologists, and evolutionary biologists held for about 150 years, though since the 70s, most have dropped this idea in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Even cognitive psychologists of religion tend to agree that it's here to stay (see Justin Barrett's, Why Would Anyone Believe in God?, as a good, short, example).

Lastly, while I find Condell aggressive and arrogant, I think that his more militant approach is good and necessary in the right dose. While I take a more balanced approach myself, I recognize that breaking through the power of the dogmatic mind requires a variety of techniques. While often one-sided and narrow-minded, the militant approach can create space for conversations to take place, where more moderate voices can step in and attempt to bridge the divide. In the absence of this, however, moderates tend to tip-toe around issues or not even raise them, which is also a problem. As I see it, the value of a militant atheism is like dynamite, blowing down the wall of taboo subjects. A more moderate approach then tries to rebuild the wall on more balanced and rational grounds. The danger is when the militant approach becomes the dominant voice. That's when things can get nasty and even violent.

I based the comment on Cuba on a discussion I had with a friend who's family left Cuba in order to practice Catholicism. She had said she wasn't baptized until the age of 6 for these reasons. Maybe that's not the case, though think the argument is still good otherwise.

I think that we will outgrow religion based on its current growth. There are many industrialized countries now that have atheist majorities (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html). Especially in socialized countries with an established standard of living, the people lack a reason to believe in God. Belief in God is reactionary, and one of the major causes of fundamentalism is adversity (Militant Islam in the Middle East is fueled by imperialism and class struggles). So I would say that if there really does exist a global trend towards urbanization, industrialization and widespread education, there should also be a trend toward agnosticism as people lose impetus for belief. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the pathology behind religious belief, but we have great capacity to change our own physiology through social trends. For example, the shrinking of our adrenal glands through self-domestication.

I wonder though if you are right and we don't outgrow religion, will it become so secular that it becomes a cultural tradition and not a belief system? It would surprise me if religious orthodoxy did not die out as we approach singularity and humanity becomes too marginalized for such structures to exist. But maybe that's aggressive futurism.

Thanks for your response Max.

If we put rabid anti-Castro sentiment aside (which may or may not be the case with your friend's family?), a more generous picture of Cuba emerges. Fidel is a lot of things, but he's not stupid. In sociological work on trends in secularization, it is commonly held that the secularization process in mainly Catholic countries have taken on an anti-clerical dimensions, since the church was so bound up in the corrupt structures of power. Rodney Stark, David Martin, and Peter Berger, among others, have done some fascinating work on this. It was the opposite in the United States, given the plethora of denominations, without any one being in total control of the levers of power. At any rate, the Cuban revolution was in many ways anti-clerical, but it never banned religion, which can clearly still be seen in the country today.

The trends in scholarship that I mentioned that have overwhelmingly turned away from the idea of universal secularization (since the 1970s), recognized that these powerful ideas had come from a European intelligencia, based on the assumptions of a universalized European model spreading throughout the world. As you note, much of the current backlash in the Middle East comes from imperialistic measures, which, among other things, have helped create a more militant Islam. But I would also argue that we need to be a little more refined in our approach to secularization theory. Even if we achieve levels of industrialization and education throughout the globe at the level of Europe (on which prospect I am, unfortunately, extremely pessimistic about), this still doesn't account for the many different worldviews of cultural traditions that understand religion in relation to the world in often radically different ways than the West.

A further problem (and I'll end here), is the inevitable void that modernization and pluralism has created in terms of providing strong ethical bonds of solidarity amongst citizens from different backgrounds and different cultures. Once you move out of the tribe and into the shopping mall of ideas, things becomes unstable on an existential level. Add to this mix the ascendency and domination of commercialism/materialism in our societies, and you have this void of meaning that needs to be filled. The fundamentalist surge can be partly explained by these conditions and, I would argue, the ability to be comfortable with plurality and an agnostic point of view, has always been a minority position throughout history.

Still, I commit my sentiments and efforts toward rationality and the easing of social and psychological burdens caused by poverty, consumerism, etc. And I agree that a good ideal for religion is a sort of secularized version that many modern Jews and Christians have adopted--namely, agnostic about the existence of God, but feeling the need to honour tradition all the same. But at 7 billion people and counting, thousands of different cultures and traditions, decreasing natural resources, and a lack of global priority on real, effective global change, I'm not holding my breath for religion's demise any time soon.

I can appreciate that argument. I guess time will tell whether or not the current jolt in western atheism will stabilize or expand.

However, I was glad you acknowledged the existentialist void that atheism creates. I have an incredibly intelligent physics teacher who is a devout Catholic, and once I had a long discussion with him about existentialist anxiety and how it troubled me. He says the reason he remains Catholic despite it being very uncommon among scientific academia is that a) he was raised Catholic and so it was natural to him b) you can't disprove the idea that there is a God and c) there is no atheist who can stare into the abyss and say with any honesty, I'm glad there is nothing there. Personally, I envy the religious and if I could suddenly believe in something I would.

If you really want it, its yours.

yeah I'm holding out for radioactive decay being guided by seraphim.

Hey Max,

Your point reminds me of a common saying about atheists: somethinng to the effect that trying to organize athiests (and I'll include agnostics here) is like trying to organize cats. They're too independant and therefore it just won't work.

While there are certainly any number of humanist organziations and even organized groups of atheists, the numbers are still very small. Part of the reason, as I argued in a previous post, is that atheists (or better, those committed to rational, Enlightenment values/ideas) have always been in the minority.

Perhaps a good way to approach this is through bridge organizations that attempt to grapple with secular and "religious" concerns. I was a part of a group in Toronto a number of years back called Tikkun, a branch of the group started by Rabbi Michael Lerner in Berkeley. Their mandate was actually more political than "spiritual," though they had a specific committment to bring the religous and non-religious alike together to discuss how to deal with ethical questions today. I was one of the only non-Jews in the group, though most of the people, like myself, were secular. They approached religion from a materialist perspective (i.e., how tradition, both past and present still needs to be grappled with in terms of ethics and its effects on culture, politics, etc.), in a way that any secularist could appreciate.

What is so interesting and, I believe, important about this approach is that it recognizes that religious values and ideas still have a profound effect on secular thinking and are often just below the surface, whether we know it or not. Rather than interpreting them literally, the group aimed for a dialectial approach that sought to take what was useful and move beyond what was not, while not concerning themselves with the "truth" of it all. Thoug most fundamentalists and evangelicals would reject this approach, many moderate religionists would undoubtedly find it appealing.

My point here is two-fold: Discussing the symbloic and cultural value of religous ideas as they still remain in our secular culture can be a source of existential meaning for athists/secularists too; second, and lastly, if we are to stem the tide of the hardliners (and I don't have to tell you how many of them are "batshit crazy"), secularists, who are in the minority, need all the help they can get. And who better to mount the offensive for a more rational form of religion than those who can't be easily dismissed as God-hating heathens (i.e., atheists)? In short, unless we get the moderates on our side, then we will remain grossly out numbered (and out armed, I might add!!).

a) I was raised Catholic and so it was natural to him

b) I can't disprove the idea that there is a God and

c) However, I can stare into the abyss and say with any honesty, I'm glad the God I was raised to believe in isn't there. I=n all honesty, I am glad that I think Hitchens has this absolutely correct: the Heaven I see described by Christians does indeed resemble "celestial North Korea". I can say in all honesty that the "sense of purpose" that Christians tell me that Jesus and their religion will give me strikes me as nothing but childish nonsense.

ooops, I forget to edit (a):

a) I was raised as a Catholic, but from the age of 11 or so I found it to be increasingly implausible and then just silly.

user-pic

Dawkin's reasoning for it being good that there is no Heaven is pretty flimsy when you compare it to the reality that is existing in an atheistic world.

Christianity: You live a life full of hardships and minor victories in order to spread Christianity and produce more Christians, and then you die and go to a place where nothing happens but you're essentially happy.

Atheism: You live a life full of hardships and minor victories in order to reproduce and make more humans and then you die and go nowhere which is neither good nor bad because the life you led was just a struggle for meaning and a rat race towards self actualization that almost never comes to fruition.

What is the trade off between those two? They're essentially the same. The only difference is that in the first there is a semblance of greater purpose. In a quantum mechanical atheistic world if you kill a room full of children it is irrelevant because due to the multidimensional nature of the universe, there exists a time line where the children survived into the future unscathed and so what we are observing is merely a single version of events dictated arbitrarily. I don't understand why anyone would choose to exist in either model, but the former is better in my mind than the latter. Even if Christianity is completely idiotic and evolved out of 1000's of years of schizophrenia, obsessive compulsion, temporal lobe disorder and anxiety, I would still rather that be true than the truth that I've confronted constantly for the 17 years I've existed and the 80, 90 or perhaps 1000 years (If aubrey de grey is correct) I will continue to exist.

you're only 17? oh, that's sooo cute. :) really, you're doing well, grasshopper. go forth and conquer, you have my blessing. but never dismiss anything tim says out of hand. he's older and therefore wiser. :)

and he's like a phd and stuff. and he cusses. you should learn to cuss, that's my advice to you. :)

Wow - why didn't you save yourself some trouble and just link Max to this.

Ah, but those whose don't believe in a god get to be good just because they want to be good - no threat of hell, just because we want to be good. We may fail, but we can try again. This is true for believers, too, but non-believers don't need an afterlife stick to be good. We can enjoy it all in this world.

A rational non-believer will try to make the most of this life, for themselves and for the ones around it. Empathy is drilled into our brains by evolution. Morality derives from that. Of course atheists will care if children or anyone else suffers, at least the ones who are homo-sapiens (and some other species will too actually).

And actually, I believe that's exactly the same reason why most religious people are moral, because it's in their DNA, not because of some self-indulgent commandments of some sky dictator. Have you ever thought how horrible a person you would have to be if you were only "good" because of the promise of heaven and/or fear of hell? Most people I know are religious, but none that I can think are like that.

So, even when some or probably most of those people I know will spout the fallacious "no morality without religion" bullshit, I don't think it applies to them. They aren't aware that it isn't true cause they haven't thought about it for more than 5 seconds after they heard it parroted by countless idiot priests and other sheep.

Really? I've been to a lot of churches, and the message I usually got was religion does not make anyone moral.

I've been to a lot of churches, and the message I usually got was religion does not make anyone moral.

What they say is that it gives you the guidance you need to lead a moral life and that comes to the same thing; religion is necessary to lead a moral life.

Must be a Mormon thing.

I don't think so. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that religion helps one lead a moral life.

Christianity: You live a life in which you ignore the obvious and rely on a flimsy crutch to get you through the tight spots – like an emotionally disturbed 14-year-old who STILL won't get over the fact that there isn't really a Santa Claus.

Atheism: Like a grown-up, you start thinking for yourself, and decide what you think is important and what (or who) is worth sacrificing for. Oh yeah, one more thing ... after a remarkably short time, the fact that there isn't really a Santa Claus doesn't bother you at all.

Don't ask me how, but even with no Santa Claus, I've never once had the feeling that my knowledge of quantum mechanics (mostly nonrelativistic, I admit) would have anything to do with whether killing a room full of children mattered or not. In fact, I'm quite sure that Cohen-Tannoudji's Quantum Mechanics textbook never had anything like this:

²¹And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
²²But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her.
²³And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel.
²⁴And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD.
²⁵And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho.
²⁶And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.
²⁷So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.

...all that, and no cussing at all! (For the benefit of the semi-prigs and the faux-prigs.)

"I've never once had the feeling that my knowledge of quantum mechanics (mostly nonrelativistic, I admit) would have anything to do with whether killing a room full of children mattered or not."

Maybe, but you're cool with killing 40 million babies one at a time and calling it choice right?

See bottom - skinny debates literally become unitelligible.

user-pic

I guess the statement I was trying to make was that I would rather be deluded and happy than nihilistic and depressed. And there are few ways of approaching an atheistic existence philosophically that don't lend themselves to nihilism. What really is the value of being right? I think being correct is a purely human concept that has zero bearing on anything in the end. The real winner is the person who isn't an angsty asshole their whole lives like I am. So if being happy constituted having some sort of faith, I would do it if I could.

It's a rant -- a very good rant, I might add; and that's coming from a fellow who has made similar rants. Unfortunately, this sort of stuff doesn't work, usually it merely creates resentment. I got it when I wrote basically the same kind of thing in a book about Harry Potter of all things (in the chapter about Voldemort and his status as a metaphor on religion - snippet here).

I don't have an alternative to the rant, except to maintain a flexible attitude in trying to expose and undermine ideologues. In my counseling practice I encounter folks with very concretized religious beliefs, and I have to deal constructively, even supportively with them. My most recent client was a generally garden-variety Bible-beating Christian, and I needed her to loosen her inner grip on what she thought was truth, the better for us to deal with the psycho-social issues she had brought to me. So I asked her to think metaphorically, poetically, about the famous story of Jesus in the temple, kicking butt and making a mess among the money changers (it's in all four of the synoptics). I asked her to think of the temple as her mind, her mental body, and the money changers' tables as her beliefs, her mental treasure, if you will. Jesus then became her true self, turning things over; disrupting what was fixed and material and rigid; and loosening the old, stiff order within her. She was surprisingly receptive to this approach.

Generally, when I deal with believers I merely ask them not to let go of their beliefs but simply to loosen their grip on them -- one of my approaches here is a silly one, a golfing metaphor. In the end, what works is not aggression or conflict but gentle penetration. No one finds that harder to do sometimes than me, so I understand. But experience has taught me that opposition tends to cause people to plant their feet deeper into their concrete of choice.

Brian, do you find religious people as a group harder to get through to? Just curious if you find similar barriers in the non religious or less enthusiastic believers.

Here's some more fodder, regarding the afterlife. I thought about emailing Norm cause I don't have your email Red, but this seemed as good of a place as any.

Reed1gm@gmail.com

gracias - for the future.

Interesting to hear the full development of the case against religion and all that implies. I will definately think further on that and that is why I value this monologue...it makes logical sense. However, it also makes sense for people to turn to "faith" as a way to resolve the uneasiness of unexplained phenomenon.

There will always be unexplained mysteries and therefore the need for some to turn to a simple answer that provides comfort, hence the desire to believe in something greater than ourselves. Spiritual belief is not negative but, when coupled with ignorance, it provides the excuse for aggression.

This is what Norm typed in reply to Syngas, btw:

I don't think so. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that religion helps one lead a moral life.

In any case, "no morality without religion" is not the same as "religion makes people moral". There's always the devil you can place blame on, you know.

For the record, no, I'm not cool with "with killing 40 million babies one at a time and calling it choice". At the point that I think an abortion is "killing a baby" I'm not cool with it at all. In fact, for that very reason, I've never much liked the "pro-choice" label. I'm quite cool with a morning after-pill, for example, because what is being "killed" is the same as what nature kills off at a rate of some 400,000 per day all over the planet. In a rational discussion of all that, what we have to agree upon is the point where we're talking about babies - at that point you and I apt to agree completely. But now were venturing into field you walked away from here. Are you bringing your ball back for another scrimmage?

I'll shoot you down every time you try promote your moral superiority Tim.

Oh . . . and it still doesn't have a flying f**k to do with quantum mechanics. (Those are Cory asterisks! ☺ - the devil makes me do it.) Seriously, you got an esoteric interpretation of the measurement process in quantum mechanics being extrapolated into the 'meaninglessness of baby killing' flopped into the atheists column while and absolutely explicit endorsement of a total massacre (one of many) by the Big Guy is conveniently overlooked in the Christians' column. Bizarre!

Too many big words Tim. Can you say that again in words even a Christian can understand? Thanks.

That's just not enough to work with, man - give me something more to fuel the Socratic dialogue.

I'll start a new forum subject tomorrow that'll piss you off plenty. If we're lucky, JoAnn will join us and ask me if I jack off!

Hey - that's one place I never went - I have standards! ... and a vivid imagination - eewww!

Sygnas, our resident Catholic.

Being human isn't about genitics, it isn't about future potential. It's about what you are today.

Cutting off your finger isn't murder and neither are abortions. Some small number kill fetuses viable outside the womb and those that do are ussually to save the mother's life.

I think we should regulate abortion in the same way other countries do, but we can't.

We can't because the rights of women is based on a court case rather than a written law. Pass a law giving a woman the right to control her own body and you can start a real conversation about when a fetus becomes a baby.

There was a time I would have agreed with you Red. Then I saw a sonogram. Thank you Radiology!

So, we should go by the moment the fetus becomes cute?

but they're not cute on sonograms. they look like little aliens preparing to burst out of someone's stomach and wreak havoc. which is basically what happens. i think abortion should be allowed until the age of, oh, 100. if someone thinks i'm not cute, i can't really blame them for wanting to kill me. and it works both ways, of course. ahem.

Maybe we should just allow people the right to remove their own organs and any organisms currently in a symbiotic relationship with them.

Even if Christianity is completely idiotic and evolved out of 1000's of years of schizophrenia, obsessive compulsion, temporal lobe disorder and anxiety, I would still rather that be true than the truth that I've confronted constantly for the 17 years I've existed and the 80, 90 or perhaps 1000 years (If aubrey de grey is correct) I will continue to exist.

The truth is that morality comes from truth and nowhere else and therefore can't come from relisigion. Killing the room full of children is wrong even if they continue exist elsewhere, you must live in the world you are presented with.

Killing each other violates the essential pact of civility we need to have good lives.

What is better about atheism is that we get to determine who and what we are for ourselves. We don't need to spend our lives trying to live up to the desires of an unknowable being that looks down at us from the clowds.

Life is what matters, and for whatever they say, no afterlife fantassy has ever sounded like life to me. Life with no risk, no mistakes, no unknown. Where there are no real rules and no real truth.

All sounds like hell.

There will be nothing to make me unhappy when I die. Perhaps quantum physics will always keep some version of me around in some way, perhaps not.

I'm back after a month in the hospital and suffering with hellish pain.

Syngas, I have no desire whatsoever to get into anymore fruitless snarky discussions with you. Anyway, you bowed out of the last conversation on this and avoid dealing with the issue by acting silly. I am amused by perusing these comments now and then, but that's the extent of my interest. I already know what you're going to say and you know what I will say. There's no point in us continuing anymore dialogue together. I'm enjoying life too much to bother with you. It feels fabulous to be back home.

I had some horrific experiences with do gooder Christians at the hosptial, though, that I might post about in the forum to see if others have had similar experiences.

you were missed, Hope you are doing better.

Thank you RedSeven. It's good to be back and reading the always interesting comments by you and the other regulars here.

I have a ways to recover, but my friends are so helpful and loving that I'm actually enjoying my recovery. The painkillers also help a lot.

Sorry to hear you have more recovery to go. Glad to hear you have good friends to support you.

Since you were last here norm gave gypsy and I the ability to post on the main blog.

Also, I am Reed.

We will enjoy your company as you recover, JoAnn!

Good to have you back Joann. I hope you are more on the mend every day. Also, I hope that you ave the mac daddy insurance plan to cover what ails you.

yeah, choosing between loving friends and painkillers was always hard for me, too. best to have both. but i warn you, joanne, too much of one will ruin your relationship with the other. personal experience.

and stop being such a bitch to poor syngas. you know damn well that if you were in trouble you'd rather have him around than...well, a lot of other people. i'm sure he doesn't want or need me to defend him and is quite sure i'm going to hell. but doesn't "solid" mean anything to you? try to be solid, it's worth something.

oh wait, you are solid. my bad. :)

good to see ya. refuah shelaimah.

Thank you Gypsy Sister, Tim and Jonathan. It's like having a little cyber family. ;)

I don't have insurance.. I'll be doing a blog post on this experience though with some interesting details.

u 4got reed. and i'm sure there are others here who wish you well and didn't see your post.

re: insurance- i hold that all tewa should be automatically insured by the u.s. gov't, since so many of your physical complaints and diseases are the direct result of their having stolen your land to screw around with nukes on, far from white people. there's a real legal case here, i'm sure someone must have thought of it before...

looking foward to your post, sorry about what you're going thru to have something to write about.

Holy cow, what a quick response. You're pretty cool jonathan. I don't know about these lawsuits though. Have you ever read about Silkwood? I believe that she was represented by Gerry Spence. He managed to get a good settlement for her, but I believe that the judge shot it down.

I already thanked Reed.

I have to google refuah shelaimah. My home care nurse is Jewish. She said she was putting up a xmas tree for her relatives who are pagans... What a strange (in a cool way) world this is..

blogger first response team.

do you know how long it's taken me just to be "pretty cool"? i'm hoping if i make it to 80 or so i'll graduate to "really cool".

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives