Search



Comments

« Fred Phelps' Leviticus 18:22 monument • Home • Penis Church »

Bible Belt logic

• Christian Fundamentalism

Christian fundamentalist logic as evidenced by a protester at the Ten Commandments vigil in Washington, DC:

Bobby Coley's bright orange Auburn sweatshirt stood out in the crowd that was populated heavily by Alabama residents, marked by little red buttons in the shape of the state. Coley was complaining that government officials who would deny the Ten Commandments were attending church to learn about God's law. "I have a degree in math so I think very logically. I do not understand that," he said.

Group in D.C. to present petitions to reverse ruling on commandments display

Related entries: The 10 Commandments: Bronze Age nonsense and Deconstructing the Decalogue

Richard Evans Lee
October 06, 2003 •
BlinkList • del.icio.us • Digg it • Furl • ma.gnolia
RawSugar • Shadows • Simpy • Spurl • Yahoo MyWeb
Top↑

Comments

thou shall not mix religion with politics;lest you become a pharisee.thou shall not create an image in your mind of what YOU think is right and impose your will on others in a republic....let the weed and the flower grow together until harvest;then you see which is indeed the fruitful and the non fruitful...there is a way that seems right but in the end it goes to hell

Posted by: ralph | October 19, 2003 10:15 AM

I am a liberal Christian (United Methodist, to be more exact). I disagree with what Judge Moore did. I think he adds to the black eye the state of Alabama already has (and will always have, unfortunately). Bobby Coley is my only brother and I love him dearly. I also disagree vehemently with him, but will defend to my dying day his right to have (and voice) that opinion. However, thank you for putting into words just how I feel. May I quote you?

Posted by: slick | November 13, 2003 5:10 PM

I would also agree that we all have a right to voice our opinion, but why do you disagree with Mr. Moore? Ex-Judge Moore took a stand on a foundation that he believes in and wouldn't back down. When the left is against an idea it is okay to fight in opposition, but when a more conservative stance is taken, it is deemed incorrect. I am also curious as to the nature of the "blacker" eye that he has given the state.

Posted by: kannibal | November 14, 2003 2:19 PM

On Mr. Moore, in one of his speecehes he said, if you were not christian, you did not deserve equal treatment under the law. This was in the Birmingham News several months ago. Also, the first amendment states congress shall make no law establishing a religeon, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. His idol in a state JUDICIAL building bespeaks of tacitly establishing a religeon. He also refused to allow other religeous items to be displayed. The building does not belong to him, it belongs to the people of the state. If he were allowed to stay in office, that puts him above the law. Regardless of how you feel, a federal judge ordered him to remove it. If he refused, and got away with it, does that mean that we can pick and choose which laws we have to obey? Do I have to pray at a monument? What comes next? If I don't belong to his particular faith, am I unchristian, unamerican?

Posted by: MyThoughts | November 14, 2003 4:32 PM

Unchristian, Unamerican and ready for a greased ride into Hell and eternal damnation. Didn't you know that Jesus wrote the constitution and that the Ten Commandments overrides the Bill of Rights. How dare you mock a fine Christian leader like Mr. Moore. He is one of the Lard's annointed. How can you sleep at night you poor, damned sinner without fearing that the Almighty God will strike you dead for daring to criticize one of His holy men?

Posted by: Dr. Theology | November 14, 2003 4:56 PM

I am going out of town in a few minutes, but I will be answering each point Sunday evening when I return. I will be happy to address the issues that you have addressed.

Posted by: Kannibal | November 14, 2003 5:35 PM

I would like to discuss the issue. However, if you are Baptist, I have been told enough times that I do not belong to the true church, that I am not a real christian, and I am damned to hellfire unless I become a Baptist. Also, I have been called unamerican since 1968 when I carried an anti-war sign, and called unamerican again when I returned several years later from that jungle paradise. I am a Methodist and a Vet. If you can leave off the ridicule, I would like to have an intelligent discourse on this brouhaha.

Posted by: MyThoughts | November 15, 2003 7:52 PM

I am still at work, but would love to discuss this issue further. I am not "denominated" and I never resort to name calling. I will post a response this evening to your last one. I never claim to damn anyone, for I am not Jesus.

Posted by: kannibal | November 17, 2003 4:47 PM

First I am curious about one of the first things you mentioned in your discourse. I was unable to find any mention of the idea that Roy Moore claimed that non-Christians didn't deserve equal treatment under the law. If you could get me to that article I would appreciate it. If he did make such a statement that would change my view of him drastically. I would argue that the monument has nothing to do with establishing a state religion. If it did, then why aren't there countless lawsuits in other states. There are monuments to the 10 commandments in many state and federal courthouses all across the country. In the Commonwealth of Virginia there has been a recent ruling that a Pagan woman can recite a prayer before the city board meeting. I don't have a problem with her prayer and it doesn't establish a city religion because the city endorses her praying. The monument to the 10 commandments has historical precedence and that is why they exist in many courthouses. Now, the issue of the monument as being construed as an idol?!? Do you really believe people worship the actual sculpture or will be made to bow to it? You might argue that Mr. Moore would like to have that happen, but I have never heard him say that or seen any evidence that this would be the case. We all know that the basis for our laws come from the 10 commandments and many of the founders acknowledge this point. What other religious icons would you argue should be in a courthouse? The issue of him refusing to obey the courts is something entirely different. I have many feelings on this subject, but I would tend to agree that he should have obeyed the order. I would also say that this country is slowing giving into an oligarchy. The Judicial branch is weighing a bit heavy in the balance and the checks are being cashed at our expense. While I do agree that he should have just obeyed the order and took up the fight differently, there is another arguement to be made. When Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X opposed Federal and State laws was that wrong? Should Black people have just excepted the law and not opposed them. They risked jail and death to fight for what they felt was right. Why should it be any different for a judge that feels he is standing on solid principles? No one is asking anyone to pray to the monument. If they did, I would be standing with the ACLU. Welcome home! I was twelve years old when I began to study the Vietnam war. I even made shirts that reminded people to remember our Veterans. I will tell you that I lean more Conservative, but I grew up as a socialist thinker. I was involved in trying to re-establish the Black Panthers when I was in HS and yet I still believe in most of what they stood for. I am an Evangelical Christian, but I give everyone's ideas thought and I am not above placing my ideas aside to listen to others. I enjoy varied opinions, but I just want truth to be the ultimate goal. Look forward to many discussions. Brian

Posted by: Kannibal | November 18, 2003 12:50 AM

Promise to reply later, Child sick, overtime. Am checking on article concerning statement. Appeared in Birmingham News approx May of this year. Wife is researching, contacting paper for reprint. If in PDF format, and I am able to get it, may I e-mail it to you? Rob

Posted by: MyThoughts | November 18, 2003 3:24 PM

Hey I understand respond when you can. I am just waiting to read your reply. I would appreciate the article. I hate to give out my email, but one of them is razputin26@yahoo.com. just send to that and I will read it and get back to you. I really appreciate you taking the time. Brian

Posted by: kannibal | November 19, 2003 12:33 AM

Brian, Sent reply via e-mail. Happy Thanksgiving!

Posted by: MyThoughts | November 26, 2003 9:49 PM

Brian, Have not heard from you, has my mail gotten loused up - again? Rob

Posted by: MyThoughts | December 9, 2003 10:30 PM

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;... Doesn't this amendment to the constitution protect state's from Federal jusidiction in matters of religion? It seems to me the state legislature has the right and authority to settle this but a Federal judge is absolutlely prohibited.

Posted by: Believer | December 17, 2003 6:42 PM

I am reminded by the quote “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.” One must remember what our framers of the constitution had lived through. The “other” church had to registered with the crown. Even the people themselves had to be registered. The “other” church could not have services at the same time as the Church of England. The “other” church could not be on a main street. Even Bibles held by individuals were not allowed. Hence, no government establishment of a religion. No laws prohibiting the free exercise, we are able to attend any religious service or church we desire, or choose not to attend. Personally, I don’t need to go to a state supreme court building that establishes laws to worship. When the rock was placed in the building in the dead of night, video taped for sale by a religious group (others not allowed), for whose benefit was it? If it was for personal (read political) gain, for whose glory was it? Why were not other religious items allowed? Moore refused them to be displayed. The building belongs to the entire state, not just Moore, different faiths, different people. Judge Myron Thompson must have thought the same way. His opinion is very interesting, and available on the net as a PDF file (about 50 pages). I can e-mail the PDF or possibly find the site and let you go to it. Not written in legalese either. The following quote spoken by Jimmy Carter is very interesting: "The separation of church and state has been a divisive issue since the time of Christ. In some Christian groups there are prescriptions for who's a good American. People who disagree with them on a particular issue, therefore, are not good Americans. All of us have the tendency to believe that our way of worship is obviously the best way. ...But when we start trying to force-through government laws--others to worship as we do or treat them as secondary citizens without equal rights, that's when we become like the Pharisees." - Adult class at Maranatha, July 1994 From The Carpenter's Apprentice by Dan Ariail and Cheryl Heckler-Feltz , page 116. Now, you want to allow the knuckleheads in Montgomery to make a law?

Posted by: MyThoughts | December 19, 2003 11:00 PM

A well stated response. I agree with you and I'm not arguing the right or wrong of the decision. It just seems to me that one of the biggest concerns the framers had to contend with was the fear the states had of ratifying a central government with too much power over the state governments. Many of the amendments are written for that purpose and worded in that way. A good example of this would be the right to bear arms, "...being necessary to the security of a free STATE". What I'm talking about is jurisdiction. The first amendment is specifically addressed to the congress. There is no mention of the federal judiciary but it would appear that this amendment is specifically directed to a limitation of federal power. That would lead me to believe that right or wrong the federal judge overreached his authority ordering the removal of the commandments. It should have been dealt with by the state legislature or state judiciary.

Posted by: Believer | December 20, 2003 4:38 PM

I am not sure what you are trying to say. In your second sentence you said you are not arguing about the decision, but in your second to the last sentence you said Judge Thompson had no authority. I think you are saying that the federal court has no jurisdiction in the case. One must remember that Federal law supersedes state law, agreed to when the constitution was ratified by the several states. The US constitution is binding on all signatory’s, including the Bill of Rights. If this were not the case, then any time a person, or group of persons, who felt wronged and brought a suit, then the state could say whether or not they have a right to go to federal court, to redress their wrongs, then whether or not the Federal government has any rights over the states. That is not the way it is spelled out in our constitution. If we are going to have a separation of church and state, now you are going to pass laws to FORCE people to believe as you do? Back to the past. Even Judge Thompson’s decision said it could have been displayed legally, but Moore decided not to choose that route. Other items could have been displayed, but Moore refused to allow them. Is that right? Are you sure you belong to the right church? Will you be allowed to take sacraments if you don’t belong to the right church? Will the governor also be the head of the church? In effect, that seems to be what you are saying, and want. What was that Carter said about laws and like the Pharisees? What about the Buddhist and Muslim faiths? They have the same rights as everyone else. Not Moore, he is above the law of the land, and said so. That is not right. If I do something wrong, but I say that is my belief, and you have no authority over me, where will it stop? We are all subject to the same laws to make us all equal. In the state constitution it states “SEC. 7. There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.” The state legislature or state court to deal with it? Is that not tantamount to establishing a religion? Is not displaying the monument in the STATE Judiciary building, IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS DONE, violate that? Who owns the building? The people of the state, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists, etc. I do not mean the preceding list to be all exclusive of faiths. Moore’s only reason for the display was for his political gain, not for anything else. I would rather attend my own church than go to the state Judiciary building to attend worship, as Moore would have it. I am sorry, but to me your argument has no merit.

Posted by: MyThoughts | December 20, 2003 9:21 PM

I appologize if I was not clear. I was trying to say I agree with your reasoning and merely questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal judge. I do not want a state run religion. And as you stated... "In the state constitution it states “SEC. 7. There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.” ...The state has a law against it. It is the redress of grievances, as you stated, that I think comes into play here as the state was failing to uphold this state amendment. I thank you for your insight.

Posted by: Believer | December 20, 2003 11:49 PM

I always felt religion was a personal/family subject and not to be aired in any public forum. I grew up with the separation of church and state and it worked until 1992. Being born and raised in Southern California where we had many religions in our neighborhood of Santa Monica that we ignored the various ceremonies and church services. My best friend was a young gay lad who taught me to surf. We used to talk for hours about the fear that if he became a priest he might not be able to hold back his secret. He did indeed become a priest and was dismissed during the time after the WW2. I worked in the theater as a costumer for years and again mingled with actors of all sexual persuasion and religions. Who cares? I fear this new Fundamental Religion as being an assault on our individualism and wanting only to weed out those who are religious and finding all others as unqualified for society. Oh yes, I am also an Atheist because I refuse to judge others on some moral code from hell! I have my own code and it represents my word of honor.

Posted by: Sandy | January 1, 2004 8:09 AM

That atheists might have a code of honor they value deeply is something the conservative Christians simply don't believe. They talk of how Heck on Earth would break lose if people didn't have the fear of God to cow them. Didn't restrain the behavior of many of our deeply believing ancestors. And bespeaks a sad level of doubt about their own level of honesty and compassion.

Posted by: Richard | January 1, 2004 4:15 PM

Boy thats some harsh criticism towards Christians. I have noticed the ideas expressed by many Athiests that post on this site really have what I would consider a very distorted view on what Christians think, talk about, and how they view Athiests and other religions. I have also noticed that the general tone is usually very hateful. That is not the tone you would get from the vast majority of Christians and many of the things Christians get accused of on this site are ridiculous. Christians don't hate Athiests. They don't even spend any real time thinking about Athiests unless something comes up like ,what they would view as, attacks Christian symbolism. To start with both viewpoints are unprovable. Attempts to do so are futile. Christians are by no means stupid for believing in God. Its a rational viewpoint. The universe is constructed on consistent physical laws. This give credence to the concept of intellegent design. There are many other concepts to derive this conclusion from but I'm just making the point that you're not a drooling red neck idiot if you believe in God. Then there's the distortion of what Christians think. You wrote "They talk of how Heck on Earth would break lose if people didn’t have the fear of God to cow them." This statement is incorrect. Christians think heck IS breaking loose and its only going to get worse. They beleive that man governing themselves will ultimately lead to our own destruction. It was fortold among other places in the books of Daniel in the old testament and the book of Revelation in the new testament. In Christian philosophy this is an unalterable conclusion. You also wrote "That atheists might have a code of honor they value deeply is something the conservative Christians simply don’t believe". I don't think any Christian would actually doubt that Athiest are commited to what they believe. The court battles that have been waged over the ten commandments or any religious symbolism in any public forum proves that to all Christians. Getting more back to the original point... There is no "Separation of church and state" amendment. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Unfortunately the Bill of Rights is far too vague. This has led to many different interpretations and mis-interpretations. I think the Founders wanted to ensure there would not be a state sponsored government like what you would find in the Middle East today. They also didn't want government to eliminate religion from the public forum. The Founders themselves included religious practices in government functions like praying before sessions of congress. That is still practiced today but they don't specify the God of Abraham or Mohomad or Buhda. The idea that inclusion of God would offend somebody would have been unthinkable. Even if somebody was an Athiest (they did exist even back then) they would have considered it to be very distastefull and bad form to complain about it. Especially since its absolutely harmless and probobly even healthy to show a little respect and recognize that there are greater forces in the universe that ourselves. Arguements like "under God" in the pledge of allegience. I really think these things come up to be intentionally decisive. We sit here and argue about something thats so stupid. I mean to people of faith its a slap in the face of God but to you, what do you care? You don't even believe in God. Its really to give us some stupid and pointless "issues" to argue about while the whole politics thing is really about power and money. Politicians realize theres voters and theres the money machine. They spend thier time trying to devise issues that will drive voters to the polls so they can get thier hands on the pot of gold. Talking about beliefs, I really believe its that shallow. I ought to know I worked for a Democrat polititian for 3 years. I could tell you stories that would make you move to Antartica!

Posted by: Believer | January 2, 2004 12:28 AM

Typo correction: In the second to last paragraph of my last post I typed "decisive". I intended to type "devisive".

Posted by: Believer | January 2, 2004 12:34 AM

One thing that I'VE noticed is that Christians have a very distorted view of what Christians think, talk about, and how they view Atheists and other religions. Like it or not, Atheists take a lot of crap for their lack of faith, and the people they take it the most from are Christians. Paint whatever rose-tinted picture of your own faith you want, but if you actually believe that most Christians are tolerant of beliefs other than their own then you're either uninformed or lying to yourself. Until you've been an Atheist, I suggest you step down off of your soapbox of how they live in a largely Christian society. We are NOT tolerated nor are we treated very nicely by the majority of people.

Posted by: Julie | January 4, 2004 11:22 PM

Julie, If some people who call themselves Christians give you crap then I'm sorry to hear that. Christians, like Athiests, are just people. For the vast majority of them thier biggest concerns are paying thier bills, getting to work on time, and taking care of thier families. I have yet to go to a church and hear a sermon on the evils of Athiests. Actually the subject never comes up as a church service is about honoring God. The point is to be humble and recognize that there are just things in life that are entirely out of our control but thats ok because there are greater forces at work and in the end things will work out according to plan. Biblical values like Love God, Love your neighbor, Honor your mother and father, Do not kill, Do not steal, and ect are positive and caring. I would expect some arguements to be heated on either side on subjects like abortion for example. A heated arguement is no excuse for hatred. Christians do believe that Athiests are missing out but they also believe that none are free from sin. That makes us all even. If my view on Christians is distorted or rose colored or I am decieving myself than I am doing a good job of it. My view on Christians comes from knowing the attitudes of my Christian friends and from attending church. I am not trying to tell you that there are not Christians out there with attitudes. The biggest nuts tend to have the loudest voices. That is true in every segment of society. Have you ever wished another Athiest would just shut up as that person is a bad reflection on you? As for my soap box, well, we share the same soap box. I don't think you will find any attacks on Athiests or anybody else in any of my posts. I am merely expressing a point of view. If you disagree with my point of view I don't have a problem with that. Realize that any opposing point of view I express is not an attack on you or your beliefs. The point of my previous post was to point out the downward direction the conversation was suddenly heading (a common occurance on many of the posts on this site) and then comment on the first amendment and what I believed the framers viewpoint would have been on the subject. That in itself is a controversial enough subject as the bill of rights tends to be very vague and subject to a great deal of debate. Let me give you another Christian attitude to offset the one you currently have. I do not hate you nor wish any harm to you. I wish for good things for you. I want you to live a happy and fulfilling life. I hope that the love of your family and friends is so great it gives your life great meaning. And even if you don't believe in God (I hope you're mistaken about that) I pray that God will show you kindness, and love, and understanding. If you want to despise me for that, go ahead, I can take it.

Posted by: Believer | January 5, 2004 12:30 AM

Maybe I was rude. Considering the attitudes I've recieved from Christians over the years, reading that they didn't exist kind of set me off. I dunno where you live or who your friends are, but the vast majority I've met when they find out I'm an Atheist react one of these ways: 1. They regall me with their insight into God, the Bible and Chrisitanity in general, thinking maybe I'm just unenlightened. 2. They call me things like "misguided" and "confused", or tell me, quite arrogantly, that I've "strayed from the path." 3. They get angry and hateful, as if my beliefs are a personal attack on their own. As if my lack of faith is offensive and insulting to them personally. 4. They simply stand there with a suprerior grin on their face and nod smugly, giving me the kind of look that says without words that they are above arguing with the savage. 5. They deliberately draw me into a religious debate, depsite several attempts on my part to avoid an argument. I don't like discussing it because I find that religious and non-religious people rarely find closure in a debate. But they'll hack away at me anyway, and some have even followed me after I walk away shouting at my back. Very few Christians I've met take your approach of ambivilance. So, no, I have to disagree, the majority don't share your way of looking at things. As for your well-wishes, thanks, and ditto.

Posted by: Julie | January 5, 2004 1:08 AM

I am neither an Atheist nor a Christian. I am an Agnostic. This means that I do not know if God exists, because I have never had any favors from God. The arguments here are all moot, in my humble opinion. If you have not had any favors from God, then you are welcome to believe He does not exist. Anyone who says otherwise, or who tries to make you believe in God by force, is a bigoted fascist who does not deserve your respect.

Posted by: gianluca de duonni | January 6, 2004 4:22 PM

Hi Julie, I live in Cleveland but I have also lived in Illinios, Florida, and New Jersey. I don't think the demographic you're dealing with is based on location. I'm guessing that maybey its a matter of age. I am 39. There are many Christians that do not know the content of the doctrine of thier own faith. This especially tends to be true with younger "new" Christians who tend to have more of a chip on thier shoulder. Believing in God does not mean you become batman. It's not the job of a Christian to battle evil. I remember getting into a conversation with a Christian woman about scripture. She was quoting all kinds of stuff that I had never heard or read before. I did a google search and discovered she was quoting Nostradomous. It's amazing how many Christians think the bible says when you die you strap on little wings and fly to heaven. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The bible says that we will die and be reduced to dust. If that was not the case what would we need to be saved from? I don't pay too much attention to it. I figure sooner or later they're going to crack the book and figure it out. I appended to the bottom of this post a few snippets of scripture that point out what should be the Christian attitude. I'm sure there are better examples but its late and I don't have the time or energy to do an extensive search. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Hello gianluca de duonni, I don't know anymore than you do. I would never try to make you believe in God by force. If you're interested in discussing the topic then you are a willing participant and nobody is forcing you. I would be happy to give you my perspective on the subject but I won't force you to read it, ha ha, Just kidding. My perspective (not a sermon or a sales pitch)... When I was younger I spent a lot of time searching for answers to the big question. I even read Einsteins theory of relativity expecting to find some enlightenment there. Ok, go ahead and laugh. I found the theories to be fascinating but they all dealt exclusively with the physical world. Spiritual matters are all intangible. I actually read the bible cover to cover, like it was a text book. Boy was that a tough read. What I mostly did was bore myself. What I eventually got out of it, after many years of letting it sink in, was that there is a subtle poetry and beauty intermingled with many begot's and thy's and thee's. It's really many smaller stories bound together into an Epic tale that deals directly with the human element. It tackles all those big questions and intangible concepts head on. I think the biggest problem people have with the bible is it sets standards of perfection that are impossible to achieve. This should not be too surprising as the bible also says no one has ever achieved them (except Christ). I have come to enjoy the bible. I have friends that are good for having deep religious discussions with. I believe there is great insight and knowlege buried deep within those words. Amazing stuff for a carpenter and a bunch of fishermen. I have heard it said you should avoid discussing religion or politics but those are my favorite topics! +++++++++++++++++++ Snippets of what should be the Christian attitude... Luke 6:37 Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Colossians 3:12 ...clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Corinthians 10:27 If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. Psalm 145:9 The LORD is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made. Peter 3:8 Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Mathew 5:39 You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Posted by: Believer | January 8, 2004 12:09 AM

How do you feel?

Feel free to share your feelings about Bible Belt logic. Please stick to the theme of the entry. Disagreement is fine. Homophobia, racism, and kindred expressions of hatred will be deleted. This site is one of my hobbies. I genuinely enjoy hearing from people and hate moderating or killing comments. Forthright disagreement is fine as long as it is civil.
My thanks,
Richard

Monthly Summaries

March 2007, February 2007, January 2007, December 2006, November 2006, October 2006, August 2006, July 2006, June 2006, May 2006, April 2006, March 2006, February 2006, January 2006, December 2005, November 2005, October 2005, September 2005, August 2005, July 2005, June 2005, May 2005, April 2005, March 2005, February 2005, December 2004, November 2004, October 2004, September 2004, August 2004, July 2004, June 2004, May 2004, April 2004, March 2004, February 2004, January 2004, December 2003, November 2003, October 2003, September 2003, August 2003, July 2003, June 2003, May 2003, April 2003, March 2003, February 2003, January 2003, December 2002, November 2002, October 2002, September 2002, August 2002, May 2002, April 2002, March 2002,

Recent Posts



Thematic Archives

Powered by
Movable Type 4.0

Syndication


Edifying Spectacle
Index
Christian Fundamentalism
Bible Belt logic
Top of page