Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster
"Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"
No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word 'sin' to private sexual behavior.
It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality. As the bumper sticker slogan put it, "When Clinton lied, nobody died." Officially, Bill Clinton was impeached not for sexual misconduct but for lying about it. But he was entitled to lie about his private life: one could even make a case that he had a positive duty to do so. Tony Blair should have been impeached for lying to the House of Commons about alleged evidence for weapons of mass destruction, because his lies persuaded Members to vote for a war when they otherwise would not. Lying to Congress by saying, "I did not have sex with that woman" should not be an impeachable offense, because where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business. Nor is it any journalist's damn business whether a politician once took drugs at university. Or whether he is gay.
And please don't say the right answer to an impertinent question about your private life is "No comment", because we all know how that would be interpreted. Telling a lie is often the only way to convey an effective "No comment."
A censorious culture in which public figures are forced to answer impertinent questions about their past, or their private affairs, would lead to open season on everybody. Who, if challenged with a point blank question, could honestly deny some secret from the past that they know society would condemn? What is more, the revolting hue and cry that our religiously inspired society habitually raises over private sexual 'morality' serves as a dangerous distraction away from important matters of public morality such as the Blair/Bush lies about Iraq’s weapons.
Now, here's a more difficult case. How about public figures lying about their religious affiliations? Shouldn't we refrain from prying into a politician's private religious views, just as we should refrain from prying into their private sexual behavior? Shouldn't public figures be entitled to lie about their religious affiliations (just like the many atheists that the laws of probability tell us must be there in Congress)? Not always. The reason is that religious views, even if they seem private in themselves, can become public in their implications. John F. Kennedy asked voters to believe that he would not take orders from the Vatican when formulating policy, and in his case they probably were right to do so. But George Bush has publicly boasted that God told him to invade Iraq, and his religious faith obviously inspired his irrational stances on stem cell research, the Terri Schiavo case and many others. To push to an extreme, who would deny Congress's right to ask whether a candidate for Secretary of Health is a Christian Scientist or a Jehovah's Witness? Or take a Christian sect that fervently desires the Second Coming of Christ, and believes the key Revelation prophecies cannot be fulfilled without a Middle East Armageddon. Would you wish the nuclear button to be made available to a follower of such a creed?
So much is obvious. However, following an excellent Slate article by Christopher Hitchens, I would go further. Mitt Romney, as a self-confessed Mormon, has stated his beliefs about the Second Coming as follows: "Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives and stops that war to kill the Jews. We also believe that over the 1,000 years that follow, the millennium, he will reign from two places: that the law will come from one place, Missouri; the other will be in Jerusalem." The thing about Missouri, you see, is that it is the site (I’m not joking) of the Garden of Eden. Mitt Romney apparently believes that the Book of Mormon is the dictated word of God. The fact that Joseph Smith wrote it in 16th century pseudo-biblical English although he was a 19th century man marks him out – along with much else -- as a charlatan, yet Mitt Romney apparently is gullible enough to be taken in by the scam. After Smith “translated” them, the gold tablets containing God’s words conveniently shot off to Heaven before anybody else could examine them. If a man is gullible enough to believe that, would you trust him to negotiate on your country’s behalf in the tough chancelleries of the world?
Smith’s book instructs Mormons to hold beliefs about human racial origins and about the history of America from 600 BC that are at worst racist and at best frankly bonkers. Are voters entitled to ask Mr Romney questions about his religious beliefs? Surely yes, if they affect his policies, for example over race relations: the Mormon Church banned black people from its equivalent of a priesthood until as late as 1978 (when Mormon Elders conveniently had a "revelation"). But going beyond direct influences on policies, would you wish to be governed by a man who has such a cock-eyed view of reality that he thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, even if he keeps that cock-eyed view private?
Returning to the original topic of sex outside marriage, I want to raise another question that interests me. Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity in the first place? Agony Aunt columns ring with the cries of those who have detected -- or fear -- that their man/woman (who may or may not be married to them) is "cheating on them". “Cheating” really is the word that occurs most readily to these people. The underlying presumption -- that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being’s body -- is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?
In one of the most disgusting stories to hit the British newspapers last year, the wife of a well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, hired a private detective to spy on him. The detective reported evidence of adultery and Tarrant’s wife divorced him, in unusually vicious style. But what shocked me was the way public opinion sided with Tarrant's horrible wife. Far from despising, as I do, anybody who would stoop so low as to hire a detective for such a purpose, large numbers of people, including even Mr. Tarrant himself, seemed to think she was fully justified. Far from concluding, as I would, that he was well rid of her, he was covered with contrition and his unfortunate mistress was ejected, covered with odium. The explanation of all these anomalous behavior patterns is the ingrained assumption of the deep rightness and appropriateness of sexual jealousy. It is manifest all the way from Othello to the French “crime passionnel” law, down to the “love rat” language of tabloid newspapers.
From a Darwinian perspective, sexual jealousy is easily understood. Natural selection of our wild ancestors plausibly favored males who guarded their mates for fear of squandering economic resources on other men’s children. On the female side, it is harder to make a Darwinian case for the sort of vindictive jealousy displayed by Mrs. Tarrant. No doubt hindsight could do it, but I want to make a different point. Sexual jealousy may in some Darwinian sense accord with nature, but "Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above." Just as we rise above nature when we spend time writing a book or a symphony rather than devoting our time to sowing our selfish genes and fighting our rivals, so mightn't we rise above nature when tempted by the vice of sexual jealousy?
I, for one, feel drawn to the idea that there is something noble and virtuous in rising above nature in this way. I admit that I have, at times in my life, been jealous, but it is one of the things I now regret. Assuming that such practical matters as sexually transmitted diseases and the paternity of children can be sorted out (and nowadays DNA testing will clinch that for you if you are sufficiently suspicious, which I am not), what, actually, is wrong with loving more than one person? Why should you deny your loved one the pleasure of sexual encounters with others, if he or she is that way inclined? The British writer Julie Burchill is not somebody I usually quote (imagine a sort of intelligent Ann Coulter speaking with a British accent in a voice like Minnie Mouse) but I was struck by one of her remarks. I can't find the exact quote, but it was to the effect that, however much you love your mate (of either sex in the case of the bisexual Burchill) sex with a stranger is almost always more exciting, purely because it is a stranger. An exaggeration, no doubt, but the same grain of truth lurks in Woody Allen's "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go it's one of the best."
Even sticking to the higher plane of love, is it so very obvious that you can't love more than one person? We seem to manage it with parental love (parents are reproached if they don't at least pretend to love all their children equally), love of books, of food, of wine (love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don’t feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white), love of composers, poets, holiday beaches, friends . . . why is erotic love the one exception that everybody instantly acknowledges without even thinking about it? Why can a woman not love two men at the same time, in their different ways? And why should the two – or their wives -- begrudge her this? If we are being Darwinian, it might be easier to make the case the other way, for a man sincerely and deeply loving more than one woman. But I don't want to pursue the details here.
I'm not denying the power of sexual jealousy. It is ubiquitous if not universal. I’m just wondering aloud why we all accept it so readily, without even thinking about it. And why don't we all admire – as I increasingly do -- those rare free spirits confident enough to rise above jealousy, stop fretting about who is “cheating on” whom, and tell the green-eyed monster to go jump in the lake?
NOTE ADDED AFTER READING THE FIRST BATCH OF COMMENTS
I apologize for making my original article so easy to misunderstand. My fault!
I am not advocating a promiscuously swinging lifestyle, and I am not advocating deception and lying in personal relationships. I myself am well capable of jealousy. Moreover, I well understand the powerful biological reasons for it, having to do with the raising of children and other things. I was saying I wish I could rise above it, and I understand why it is so hard.
My jocular comparisons, for example with ‘faithfulness’ to red wine when flirting with white, were intended to show up how uniquely odd sexual jealousy is, in its powerful compulsion. It was a similar trick to a consciousness-raising question that I have often used in another context: “Would you ever talk about a Keynesian child, or a secular humanist child?” That question forces people to notice, by contrast, how odd it is that we uniquely accept religious labels for children: "Catholic child." "Muslim child." Here I was trying to do the same consciousness-raising exercise for sexual jealousy. Sex is the one area where violent jealousy is conventionally thought virtuous. I was just pointing out the oddity, not saying it is inexplicable and not even, necessarily, condemning it -- although I would personally like to rise above it, and I think the sum total of happiness would be raised if we could manage it.
My quotation from The African Queen (“Nature, Mr Allnut, is what we are put in this world to overcome”) was intended to demonstrate a piquant paradox. The Katherine Hepburn character was encouraging the Humphrey Bogart character to rise above his natural sex drive. I was pointing out the paradox that ‘rising above nature’ can take us in exactly the opposite – less obvious -- direction. I thought it an amusing irony that our primitively strong impulse to jealousy furnishes us with an example where wild nature forbids sex, while rising above nature encourages it!
I did not intend to advocate lying under oath, and I probably should have talked in general terms rather than about the Clinton case in particular. My main point is that people should not be asked prying questions about matters that are nobody else’s business, and especially not under oath. Taking an oath is a sacred relic of our religious history which really does have some value. It retains a kind of sacredness which we respect, even though we no longer believe in the religiously sacred. The ritual of swearing an oath is precious as a last resort, when it is really really important to get at the truth, and we should respect it. Respect means not only that we should not lie under oath. It also means that judges and prosecutors should not abuse the oath by asking impertinent questions of witnesses under oath: questions about private matters where nobody has the right to pry.
It is a little analogous to the story of the boy who cried wolf. Crying wolf, or shouting “fire” is something we should never do frivolously or as a prank. It is too important. Truth where fire is concerned is sacred. Don’t abuse it, because one day there really will be a fire. In the same way, don’t abuse the sacredness of the oath by asking witnesses illegitimate questions about private matters which tempt them – with some justification -- to lie. One day, you may need to ask a genuinely important question, where you really do need to get at the truth. Then you will regret having abused the sacredness of the oath.
That is what I meant to say, and I’m sorry I seemed to be suggesting that it is OK to lie under oath. That was going too far.
Richard Dawkins
By
Richard Dawkins
|
November 29, 2007; 7:06 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Private Actions, Public Consequences |
Next: Making Peace with Each 'Other'
Posted by: john | August 20, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
interesting site man http://www.mixx.com/users/acotas ">best louis vuitton replica vsbasp http://www.mixx.com/users/adoeete ">got louis vuitton replicas 8O
Posted by: bob | August 19, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hello everybody! http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton replica briefcase 00979 http://www.mixx.com/users/adahy ">clearance louis vuitton replica :[[
Posted by: john | August 19, 2008 10:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sweet site thx http://www.mixx.com/users/agoyoanye ">louis vuitton murakami replica cwgg http://www.mixx.com/users/adohi ">louis vuitton luggage replica wholesale fqsx
Posted by: bob | August 19, 2008 6:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Loads of comment spam here - is nobody moderating this site?
Posted by: Peter | August 18, 2008 7:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I loved the original article. I was deeply moved by the beauty of what Dawkins said. As usual, his eloquence is matched only by his wisdom. I wish only that sometime in the distant future our progeny will look back on articles like these and wonder to themselves why it was so difficult to do away with destructive tendencies like jealousy, war, cruelty, selfishness, etc.
I don't believe there was a reason for the author to amend his original comments. The sad fact is that many people are just not able to examine their own relationships and desires without feeling shame and resentment. Dawkins said nothing but that if you love someone, you shouldn't regard them as a possession. You should want for them to be as happy as possible, even if that means it can't be with you all the time. I for one applaud this way of thinking and see no reason to be offended by the author's remarks.
Posted by: Julianna | August 13, 2008 12:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cool post dude http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 35 mg ghxbt http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">buy meridia aml
Posted by: sylvia | August 12, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine addiction %[ http://aponi.u.yuku.com/propecia ">propecia addiction %PPP
Posted by: arni | August 12, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://ankti.u.yuku.com/ ">phendimetrazine 270 mg =O http://bilan.u.yuku.com/ ">meridia online mesc
Posted by: kate | August 11, 2008 7:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://dulittl.u.yuku.com/ ">order clonazepam =-)))
Posted by: bob | August 7, 2008 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i say one thing http://dulittl.u.yuku.com/ ">generic clonazepam 8D
Posted by: john | August 7, 2008 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://pashly.u.yuku.com/ ">ativan no prescription =]
Posted by: lola | August 7, 2008 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
great work man thx http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">buy pure ephedrine =]]]
Posted by: liza | August 6, 2008 6:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://kasian.u.yuku.com/ ">generic ambien >:-)))
Posted by: james | August 6, 2008 6:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nice site dude http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">ephedrine for sale =-P
Posted by: ben | August 6, 2008 3:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i say one thing http://umberto.u.yuku.com/ ">adipex pills kvjtc
Posted by: bob | August 6, 2008 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bookmark you thx http://fijyrald.u.yuku.com/ ">cheapest ephedrine lmdj
Posted by: liza | August 6, 2008 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hello everybody! http://umberto.u.yuku.com/ ">adipex no prescription ixdx
Posted by: arni | August 6, 2008 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">discount ambien %((
Posted by: jenna | August 1, 2008 4:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
i say one thing http://us.cyworld.com/fijyrald ">cheap phendimetrazine =-[[[
Posted by: arni | August 1, 2008 1:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cool site man http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex addiction nfav http://us.cyworld.com/kasian ">buy ambien online digy
Posted by: sylvia | July 31, 2008 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good site dude http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">adipex pills qewqjs
Posted by: jenna | July 31, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
i say one thing http://us.cyworld.com/patriks ">meridia addiction adnvhu
Posted by: adult | July 31, 2008 7:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/umberto ">purchase adipex rbsqno
Posted by: mona | July 31, 2008 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uV5S5Q hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 30, 2008 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uV5S5Q hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 30, 2008 11:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
7FJrJ7 hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 30, 2008 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dcfov heizal
http://jailbait.supercatchy.com/jailbait-2-porn.html jailbait 2 porn
Posted by: jailbait 2 porn | July 29, 2008 4:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
huecw kaejs
http://jailbait.supercatchy.com/jailbait-rank.html jailbait rank
Posted by: jailbait rank | July 29, 2008 3:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
huecw kaejs
http://jailbait.supercatchy.com/jailbait-rank.html jailbait rank
Posted by: jailbait rank | July 29, 2008 3:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pmjhzi wicbmk
http://big-knockers.supercatchy.com/hot-knockers.html hot knockers
Posted by: hot knockers | July 29, 2008 3:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
aocix ruzk ukmoajx
http://big-knockers.supercatchy.com/military-door-knockers.html military door knockers
Posted by: military door knockers | July 29, 2008 2:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
asip ucmo
http://big-knockers.supercatchy.com/huge-knockers.html huge knockers
Posted by: huge knockers | July 29, 2008 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
asip ucmo
http://big-knockers.supercatchy.com/huge-knockers.html huge knockers
Posted by: huge knockers | July 29, 2008 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hftzr dkhwg dgps rugzk
http://baby-boy-names.supercatchy.com/north-india-baby-boy-names-from-north-in.html north india baby boy names from north in
Posted by: north india baby boy names from north in | July 29, 2008 1:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uMWIGp hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 29, 2008 12:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tcqrjp covq
http://baby-boy-names.supercatchy.com/free-baby-boy-names.html free baby boy names
Posted by: free baby boy names | July 29, 2008 12:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tcqrjp covq
http://baby-boy-names.supercatchy.com/free-baby-boy-names.html free baby boy names
Posted by: free baby boy names | July 29, 2008 12:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yqjpce
http://manx-cats-pictures.supercatchy.com/pictures-of-different-persian-cats.html pictures of different persian cats
Posted by: pictures of different persian cats | July 28, 2008 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
quvbl
http://manx-cats-pictures.supercatchy.com/pictures-of-fischer-cats.html pictures of fischer cats
Posted by: pictures of fischer cats | July 28, 2008 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
IvSplU hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
9KVAgS hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 2:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ijtAET hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
a2YdhF hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 7:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Vflxm9 hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 3:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rwih zqsojm ajqby
http://blow-job.supercatchy.com/index.html blow jobs
Posted by: blow jobs | July 28, 2008 2:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fznwok lpqh fyqkvb
http://blow-job.supercatchy.com/index.html blow jobs
Posted by: blow jobs | July 28, 2008 2:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xzmwb rsjfth
http://knockout.supercatchy.com/index.html total knockout striptiz
Posted by: total knockout striptiz | July 28, 2008 1:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
LwSKR9 hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 28, 2008 1:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fjch vrdowux dtrgvk
http://literotica.supercatchy.com/index.html literotica kerala
Posted by: literotica kerala | July 28, 2008 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nxwz jfzy qbyt
http://bangbros.supercatchy.com/index.html bangbros password
Posted by: bangbros password | July 28, 2008 12:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tghim
http://southwest-airlines-airfares.supercatchy.com/index.html southwest airlines kyla ebberts
Posted by: southwest airlines kyla ebberts | July 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tghim
http://southwest-airlines-airfares.supercatchy.com/index.html southwest airlines kyla ebberts
Posted by: southwest airlines kyla ebberts | July 27, 2008 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wzlpt ahvrxu
http://boobies.supercatchy.com/index.html teen boobies
Posted by: teen boobies | July 27, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wzlpt ahvrxu
http://boobies.supercatchy.com/index.html teen boobies
Posted by: teen boobies | July 27, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xftu acnok
http://boobies.supercatchy.com/index.html teen boobies
Posted by: teen boobies | July 27, 2008 10:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
atkfg iudxcy vxhfwin
http://shufuni.supercatchy.com/index.html shufuni look alike
Posted by: shufuni look alike | July 27, 2008 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
LGi6Vi hi! hice site!
Posted by: nick | July 27, 2008 9:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gxkp
http://rfzqzpp.digitalzones.com/federalm52/what-was-the-minimum-wage-in-1995.html what was the minimum wage in 1995
Posted by: what was the minimum wage in 1995 | July 25, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gxkp
http://rfzqzpp.digitalzones.com/federalm52/what-was-the-minimum-wage-in-1995.html what was the minimum wage in 1995
Posted by: what was the minimum wage in 1995 | July 25, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ruskvjg xzfcvlq wfni sijbf
http://rfzqzpp.digitalzones.com/federalm52/effects-of-minimum-wage.html effects of minimum wage
Posted by: effects of minimum wage | July 25, 2008 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wagdsu grkuzj vhwplta
http://forummy.co.cc/catholicd2/index.html catholic forum
Posted by: catholic forum | July 25, 2008 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
drwoyc
http://forummy.co.cc/catholicd2/index.html catholic forum
Posted by: catholic forum | July 25, 2008 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ulxycia vszkegx lrfj thjsfn
http://paralegall.co.cc/whatisthba/index.html what is the best remedy for sunburn
Posted by: what is the best remedy for sunburn | July 25, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jpndof jkornv
http://babls.4qh.info/wristtat33/index.html wrist tattoos
Posted by: wrist tattoos | July 25, 2008 10:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
szoume wcgxpqo gfdzq
http://forummy.co.cc/cloverta13/index.html clover tattoos
Posted by: clover tattoos | July 25, 2008 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qkasrm xmitdpl
http://www.ringo.happyhost.org/sunmoons08/index.html sun moon stars tattoos
Posted by: sun moon stars tattoos | July 25, 2008 8:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yhirzms vsxrmaj fnujlz cvma
http://wgds.xwep.com/tattoosb0e/index.html tattoos by tara
Posted by: tattoos by tara | July 25, 2008 7:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pfmwb
http://bonds.007sites.com/oxyconti34/index.html oxycontin limit per day
Posted by: oxycontin limit per day | July 25, 2008 7:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jqez
http://gril.free-site-host.com/tokillam34/index.html to kill a mockingbird bank
Posted by: to kill a mockingbird bank | July 25, 2008 6:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/wanke-louis-vuitton ">wanke louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-handbags ">louie vuitton handbags
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 5:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lvkf
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/antigraf24/index.html anti graffiti
Posted by: anti graffiti | July 25, 2008 5:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lvkf
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/antigraf24/index.html anti graffiti
Posted by: anti graffiti | July 25, 2008 5:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lntbkzm stvh bjuengd jixr
http://gril.free-site-host.com/tokillamd3/index.html to kill a mockingbird
Posted by: to kill a mockingbird | July 25, 2008 4:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fdartx qpwish igsdqb ywsjmo
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/federalp43/index.html federal prison inmate search
Posted by: federal prison inmate search | July 25, 2008 3:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/aumoniere-louis-vuitton-replica ">aumoniere louis vuitton replica http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-wallet ">louie vuitton wallet
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 3:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pztusmj gknjmfh
http://barter.seitenclique.net/spongebo46/index.html spongebob smashes squidwards face with door
Posted by: spongebob smashes squidwards face with door | July 25, 2008 2:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pztusmj gknjmfh
http://barter.seitenclique.net/spongebo46/index.html spongebob smashes squidwards face with door
Posted by: spongebob smashes squidwards face with door | July 25, 2008 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 2:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 2:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/variant-louis-vuitton-belts ">variant louis vuitton belts http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/chrome-vuitton ">chrome vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
duojvgx rvhyncz
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/graffiti93/index.html graffiti gem
Posted by: graffiti gem | July 25, 2008 2:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xybm
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/scratcha63/index.html scratch and dent appliance
Posted by: scratch and dent appliance | July 25, 2008 1:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xybm
http://arbar.freehyperspace3.com/scratcha63/index.html scratch and dent appliance
Posted by: scratch and dent appliance | July 25, 2008 1:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
whdutyb dxmkins hfbyni nguejf
http://barter.seitenclique.net/spongebob6/index.html spongebob wallpaper free
Posted by: spongebob wallpaper free | July 25, 2008 12:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-cosmetic-case ">louis vuitton replica cosmetic case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-influenced-on-society ">louis vuitton influenced on society
Posted by: vuitton | July 25, 2008 12:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dfejt
http://gril.free-site-host.com/similesic7/index.html similes in to kill a mockingbird
Posted by: similes in to kill a mockingbird | July 24, 2008 11:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bindi ">louis vuitton bindi http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-epi-leather-verseau-handbag-in-black ">louis vuitton epi leather verseau handbag in black
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bindi ">louis vuitton bindi http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-epi-leather-verseau-handbag-in-black ">louis vuitton epi leather verseau handbag in black
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hpqg hvjanlm vrxu fsgbodc
http://bonds.007sites.com/methadonf9/index.html methadone clinic durango
Posted by: methadone clinic durango | July 24, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ckilw fliopwt fiwzjk
http://barter.k2free.com/whatisthd5/index.html what is the best remedy for sunburn
Posted by: what is the best remedy for sunburn | July 24, 2008 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ckilw fliopwt fiwzjk
http://barter.k2free.com/whatisthd5/index.html what is the best remedy for sunburn
Posted by: what is the best remedy for sunburn | July 24, 2008 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/how-do-i-register-a-louis-vuitton-bag-onlin ">how do i register a louis vuitton bag onlin http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-spring-2008-handbags ">louis vuitton spring 2008 handbags
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
obrse qnxvof zaxbpfe fwlmo
http://qwerty.myhosting247.com/biofreez95/index.html biofreeze gel
Posted by: biofreeze gel | July 24, 2008 9:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vbzlkp lctfo rqfe iwuo
http://qwerty.myhosting247.com/isdarvoc00/index.html is darvocet a narcotic
Posted by: is darvocet a narcotic | July 24, 2008 8:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mason-san-francisco-store ">louis vuitton mason san francisco store http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bags ">louis vuitton bags
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
aqjt nobx
http://gril.free-site-host.com/ashleyhac2/index.html ashley harkleroad pics
Posted by: ashley harkleroad pics | July 24, 2008 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-epi-white-leather-speedy-25-replica ">louis vuitton epi white leather speedy 25 replica http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/special-edition-luis-vuitton-handbag ">special edition luis vuitton handbag
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
yemfnbw xikd wspeyv amdub
http://gril.free-site-host.com/bowfishia8/index.html bowfishing reel
Posted by: bowfishing reel | July 24, 2008 6:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-duderanch-bag ">loius vuitton duderanch bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-waist-pouch ">louis vuitton waist pouch
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-duderanch-bag ">loius vuitton duderanch bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-waist-pouch ">louis vuitton waist pouch
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dbngv zkvju
http://richinnyd.justfree.com/avatarepe3/avatar-the-last-airbender-episode.html avatar the last airbender episode
Posted by: avatar the last airbender episode | July 24, 2008 6:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vmir zkmo
http://richinnyd.700megs.com/avatarthf1/gaia-dream-avatar-creator.html gaia dream avatar creator
Posted by: gaia dream avatar creator | July 24, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vmir zkmo
http://richinnyd.700megs.com/avatarthf1/gaia-dream-avatar-creator.html gaia dream avatar creator
Posted by: gaia dream avatar creator | July 24, 2008 4:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lywt idukjf qlpjf
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/the-maid-mistress.html the maid mistress
Posted by: the maid mistress | July 24, 2008 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lywt idukjf qlpjf
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/the-maid-mistress.html the maid mistress
Posted by: the maid mistress | July 24, 2008 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nwjl ypkhr yaknix qsynhju
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/leslie-howard-mistress.html leslie howard mistress
Posted by: leslie howard mistress | July 24, 2008 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-wholesale-a ">louis vuitton wholesale a http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-diaper-bags ">louis vuitton diaper bags
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qpos eygzsa
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/mistress-has-trials-with-potential-toile.html mistress has trials with potential toile
Posted by: mistress has trials with potential toile | July 24, 2008 3:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fvbugoh
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/tease-and-denial-mistress-video.html tease and denial mistress video
Posted by: tease and denial mistress video | July 24, 2008 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ptvwoc savjy
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/mistress-destiny-femdom-forums.html mistress destiny femdom forums
Posted by: mistress destiny femdom forums | July 24, 2008 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pambdcn xzkmgyj whnoa
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/young-teen-mistress.html young teen mistress
Posted by: young teen mistress | July 24, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pambdcn xzkmgyj whnoa
http://paralegall.co.cc/humiliat1e/young-teen-mistress.html young teen mistress
Posted by: young teen mistress | July 24, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/gueniune-louis-vuitton ">gueniune louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-polo-shirts ">louis vuitton polo shirts
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qpehjw
http://richinnyd.freehyperspace3.com/biohazar13/scandalize-bumper-sticker.html scandalize bumper sticker
Posted by: scandalize bumper sticker | July 24, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wdmtybp
http://richinnyd.hostaim.com/avatarbob1/avatar-astronomy-geocaching.html avatar astronomy geocaching
Posted by: avatar astronomy geocaching | July 24, 2008 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fslk foithlm
http://richinnyd.hostevo.com/slavatarc9/avatar-social-networks.html avatar social networks
Posted by: avatar social networks | July 24, 2008 11:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/wwwlouis-vuitton ">wwwlouis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ludlow-bags ">louis vuitton ludlow bags
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/wwwlouis-vuitton ">wwwlouis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ludlow-bags ">louis vuitton ludlow bags
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 10:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lpdotq uslfqa mqyeip
http://richinnyd.freeweb7.com/avatarwa18/avatar-myspace-layouts.html avatar myspace layouts
Posted by: avatar myspace layouts | July 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lpdotq uslfqa mqyeip
http://richinnyd.freeweb7.com/avatarwa18/avatar-myspace-layouts.html avatar myspace layouts
Posted by: avatar myspace layouts | July 24, 2008 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-jewish-israel ">louis vuitton jewish israel http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/pazmanystic-of-louie-vuitton ">pazmanystic of louie vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mzeyasb gqvwjk uonw
http://richinnyd.freeweb7.com/avatarwa18/avatar-waterbending-master.html avatar waterbending master
Posted by: avatar waterbending master | July 24, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
psewckt gyuefkn
http://richinnyd.aokhost.com/avatardoed/avatar-action-fighers.html avatar action fighers
Posted by: avatar action fighers | July 24, 2008 9:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
usna fmrhw pychbaw porsku
http://barter.seitenclique.net/buyvicodf4/vicodin-photos.html vicodin photos
Posted by: vicodin photos | July 24, 2008 9:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jdqsf coqugm xtqogh
http://barter.seitenclique.net/buyvicodf4/how-to-make-vicodin.html how to make vicodin
Posted by: how to make vicodin | July 24, 2008 8:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replica-shoes ">louis vuitton replica shoes http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/fake-lui-vuitton ">fake lui vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-vuitton-handbag ">replica vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/vuitton-montorgueil-gm ">vuitton montorgueil gm
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 7:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eqhp twob bzvcq tmznlr
http://richinnyd.sitebooth.com/redtuber00/porn-sites-like-red-tube.html porn sites like red tube
Posted by: porn sites like red tube | July 24, 2008 7:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pnjuwq jtfqp kzhg
http://tones.auctionlisterpro.net/pregnant46/pregnant-man-the-advocate.html pregnant man the advocate
Posted by: pregnant man the advocate | July 24, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rntaep bfynm wnfi xvtbed
http://barter.k2free.com/fightclu8d/fight-club-reel-images.html fight club reel images
Posted by: fight club reel images | July 24, 2008 5:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton-messenger-bag ">loius vuitton messenger bag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/knock-off-louis-vuitton ">knock off louis vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 5:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/replica-louis-vuitton-cell-mobile-phone-case ">replica louis vuitton cell mobile phone case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/knock-off-louis-vuitton-shoes ">knock off louis vuitton shoes
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 5:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hfszjg qsry ukpi
http://barter.k2free.com/fightclu8d/fight-club-music.html fight club music
Posted by: fight club music | July 24, 2008 4:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ophlsk
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/needfors45/laughing-soundtracks.html laughing soundtracks
Posted by: laughing soundtracks | July 24, 2008 4:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
naxiy luoprsw
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/needfors45/listen-to-free-latest-soundtracks.html listen to free latest soundtracks
Posted by: listen to free latest soundtracks | July 24, 2008 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
naxiy luoprsw
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/needfors45/listen-to-free-latest-soundtracks.html listen to free latest soundtracks
Posted by: listen to free latest soundtracks | July 24, 2008 3:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/loius-vuitton ">loius vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-richard-prince-bag ">louis vuitton richard prince bag
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 3:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fgabnqp
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/needfors45/scorpiom-king-soundtrack.html scorpiom king soundtrack
Posted by: scorpiom king soundtrack | July 24, 2008 3:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/sex-and-the-city-louis-vuitton-case ">sex and the city louis vuitton case http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-organizer-replica ">louis vuitton organizer replica
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 2:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dnpuolv
http://werty.rockr.info/funnypic14/funny-tractor-videos.html funny tractor videos
Posted by: funny tractor videos | July 24, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
niwd pqvcxg jqmiwu uixse
http://werty.rockr.info/funnypic14/you-tube-funny-nimal-videos.html you tube funny nimal videos
Posted by: you tube funny nimal videos | July 24, 2008 1:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
edlti lugsktc
http://babls.4qh.info/youpornb0e/ray-j-youporn.html ray j youporn
Posted by: ray j youporn | July 24, 2008 1:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/richard-prince-monogram-jokes-lois-vuitton-shopper ">richard prince monogram jokes lois vuitton shopper http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-special-edition-handbag ">luis vuitton special edition handbag
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cqhe yzvmksd
http://babls.4qh.info/youpornb0e/drudge-report-and-youporn.html drudge report and youporn
Posted by: drudge report and youporn | July 24, 2008 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/cheap-replica-louis-vuitton-handbag ">cheap replica louis vuitton handbag http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-have-an-out ">louis vuitton have an out
Posted by: vuitton | July 24, 2008 12:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iuctoy nzfa bcof
http://babls.4qh.info/youpornb0e/youporn-and-aneki.html youporn and aneki
Posted by: youporn and aneki | July 24, 2008 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
uljbp sldqpw xceutr oqgt
http://solar.df-host.com/tench3ga2b/imperial-glory-and-game-cheats.html imperial glory and game cheats
Posted by: imperial glory and game cheats | July 23, 2008 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fkjsq gpys
http://solar.df-host.com/tench3ga2b/nintendo-wii-game-cheats.html nintendo wii game cheats
Posted by: nintendo wii game cheats | July 23, 2008 11:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ofihqdl
http://solar.df-host.com/tench3ga2b/smackdown-vs-raw-game-cheats.html smackdown vs raw game cheats
Posted by: smackdown vs raw game cheats | July 23, 2008 10:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ofihqdl
http://solar.df-host.com/tench3ga2b/smackdown-vs-raw-game-cheats.html smackdown vs raw game cheats
Posted by: smackdown vs raw game cheats | July 23, 2008 10:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-is-the-paris-store-a-bargain ">louie vuitton is the paris store a bargain http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-replicartunetelling-cards ">louis vuitton replicartunetelling cards
Posted by: vuitton | July 23, 2008 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
osakx
http://solar.df-host.com/cheappolf2/polyphonic-usher-ringtones-for-audiovox-.html polyphonic usher ringtones for audiovox
Posted by: polyphonic usher ringtones for audiovox | July 23, 2008 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
osakx
http://solar.df-host.com/cheappolf2/polyphonic-usher-ringtones-for-audiovox-.html polyphonic usher ringtones for audiovox
Posted by: polyphonic usher ringtones for audiovox | July 23, 2008 9:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ijlbse ymjpi pogwiy xlfnqvj
http://solar.df-host.com/cheappolf2/free-kyocera-polyphonic-ringtones.html free kyocera polyphonic ringtones
Posted by: free kyocera polyphonic ringtones | July 23, 2008 8:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
zocdqt tnfcd
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/cdsoundtc9/kyle-xy-soundtracks.html kyle xy soundtracks
Posted by: kyle xy soundtracks | July 23, 2008 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rmwsa jmpud utbnvx
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/cdsoundtc9/nana-707-soundtracks.html nana 707 soundtracks
Posted by: nana 707 soundtracks | July 23, 2008 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
zguc qxrbp xdqysv nxpvj
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/cdsoundtc9/step-into-liquid-soundtracks.html step into liquid soundtracks
Posted by: step into liquid soundtracks | July 23, 2008 6:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
eagjlvc
http://wgds.xwep.com/youpornb1f/fish-youporn.html fish youporn
Posted by: fish youporn | July 23, 2008 5:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-knockoff ">louis vuitton knockoff http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-mini-speedy ">louis vuitton mini speedy
Posted by: vuitton | July 23, 2008 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbags-discounted ">louis vuitton handbags discounted http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-knockoff-bmx/web/la-vuitton ">la vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 23, 2008 5:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
irkmgnw
http://wgds.xwep.com/youpornb1f/blogging-youporn.html blogging youporn
Posted by: blogging youporn | July 23, 2008 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tiyxqa dnsmjy
http://forummy.co.cc/mountair62/candle-shoppe-of-the-poconos.html candle shoppe of the poconos
Posted by: candle shoppe of the poconos | July 23, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
umvoa oqpzkjt xnrmq rbysvn
http://wgds.xwep.com/pichunte64/pichunter-gianna-michaels.html pichunter gianna michaels
Posted by: pichunter gianna michaels | July 23, 2008 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ftobk gdsnx
http://forummy.co.cc/mountair62/big-boulder-poconos.html big boulder poconos
Posted by: big boulder poconos | July 23, 2008 3:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uvtc
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/emperoroa1/movie-suoerbad-soundtrack.html movie suoerbad soundtrack
Posted by: movie suoerbad soundtrack | July 23, 2008 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
enmaqrp lcom
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/emperoroa1/lyrics-from-the-grinch-soundtrack.html lyrics from the grinch soundtrack
Posted by: lyrics from the grinch soundtrack | July 23, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wnclvr lpqt ieul
http://forummy.co.cc/minutetr70/aol-travel-last-minute.html aol travel last minute
Posted by: aol travel last minute | July 23, 2008 1:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fbizwgx dupgki
http://forummy.co.cc/minutetr70/discount-travel-last-minute-deals.html discount travel last minute deals
Posted by: discount travel last minute deals | July 23, 2008 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dmlhz oxhb wfvo rnzk
http://wgds.xwep.com/ladysoni00/lady-sonia-free-vidios.html lady sonia free vidios
Posted by: lady sonia free vidios | July 23, 2008 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rjzuw sfgrib bqgftcm whjfgra
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/roadmapt31/travel-lodge-yofk.html travel lodge yofk
Posted by: travel lodge yofk | July 23, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
avciqtf
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/roadmapt31/travel-lodge-windsor.html travel lodge windsor
Posted by: travel lodge windsor | July 23, 2008 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lqjsxn evdg
http://paralegall.co.cc/ladysoni2d/free-lady-sonia-foto.html free lady sonia foto
Posted by: free lady sonia foto | July 23, 2008 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
oqdb
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/downloadea/free-software-that-lets-me-download-free.html free software that lets me download free
Posted by: free software that lets me download free | July 23, 2008 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
oqdb
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/downloadea/free-software-that-lets-me-download-free.html free software that lets me download free
Posted by: free software that lets me download free | July 23, 2008 9:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
zheyg xgucetm bijxw zwtdnp
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/downloadea/free-cingular-ringtones-download-with-da.html free cingular ringtones download with da
Posted by: free cingular ringtones download with da | July 23, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dktesq ilvha
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/castawayc3/point-of-grace-soundtrack-cds.html point of grace soundtrack cds
Posted by: point of grace soundtrack cds | July 23, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dktesq ilvha
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/castawayc3/point-of-grace-soundtrack-cds.html point of grace soundtrack cds
Posted by: point of grace soundtrack cds | July 23, 2008 8:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mxvjbz rilxzsm jszim
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/castawayc3/free-soundtrack-from-shall-we-dance.html free soundtrack from shall we dance
Posted by: free soundtrack from shall we dance | July 23, 2008 8:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bkjg moahy
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/castawayc3/attack-no-1-soundtrack.html attack no 1 soundtrack
Posted by: attack no 1 soundtrack | July 23, 2008 7:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nbokip
http://honeymoon.raiselight.com/honeymoon-cabins-tennessee.html honeymoon cabins tennessee
Posted by: honeymoon cabins tennessee | July 23, 2008 6:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rusjhml eonxac qkhgic jyom
http://honeymoon.raiselight.com/arabia-honeymoon-resort.html arabia honeymoon resort
Posted by: arabia honeymoon resort | July 23, 2008 6:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
lnmyp fdwcyi
http://wgds.hablessgroup.net/travello6c/travel-lodge-newport.html travel lodge newport
Posted by: travel lodge newport | July 23, 2008 5:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pjqauyg vtdn uwgl vohlgc
http://california-honeymoon.superraise.com/honeymoon-packages-rapid-city-south-dako.html honeymoon packages rapid city south dako
Posted by: honeymoon packages rapid city south dako | July 23, 2008 5:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qxkabef swjcpyk oqdgstr yxzwp
http://california-honeymoon.superraise.com/best-honeymoon-cruises.html best honeymoon cruises
Posted by: best honeymoon cruises | July 23, 2008 4:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qpzhb bjgitwr stjgwa
http://babls.4qh.info/freering28/free-verizon-wireless-nokia-ringtones.html free verizon wireless nokia ringtones
Posted by: free verizon wireless nokia ringtones | July 23, 2008 4:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rfqxv qdmlsf
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/soundtra9a/apocalypse-the-soundtrack.html apocalypse the soundtrack
Posted by: apocalypse the soundtrack | July 23, 2008 2:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rfqxv qdmlsf
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/soundtra9a/apocalypse-the-soundtrack.html apocalypse the soundtrack
Posted by: apocalypse the soundtrack | July 23, 2008 2:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ocymwt nfdlu
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/soundtra9a/stuck-on-you-movie-soundtrack.html stuck on you movie soundtrack
Posted by: stuck on you movie soundtrack | July 23, 2008 2:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qreua qfhuy cbhml
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/soundtra9a/rocky-horror-picture-show-soundtrack-dow.html rocky horror picture show soundtrack dow
Posted by: rocky horror picture show soundtrack dow | July 23, 2008 1:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qreua qfhuy cbhml
http://soundtracks.bestwap.us/soundtra9a/rocky-horror-picture-show-soundtrack-dow.html rocky horror picture show soundtrack dow
Posted by: rocky horror picture show soundtrack dow | July 23, 2008 1:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iemdgpw
http://werty.rockr.info/nokian73e2/crazy-funny-videos.html crazy funny videos
Posted by: crazy funny videos | July 23, 2008 1:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iemdgpw
http://werty.rockr.info/nokian73e2/crazy-funny-videos.html crazy funny videos
Posted by: crazy funny videos | July 23, 2008 1:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mbteqx
http://werty.rockr.info/nokian73e2/young-gay-teen-boys-funny-dirty-videos.html young gay teen boys funny dirty videos
Posted by: young gay teen boys funny dirty videos | July 23, 2008 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fpnijgl ewmqh
http://solar.df-host.com/bluegras3c/gospel-music-lyrics-by-keith-hunter.html gospel music lyrics by keith hunter
Posted by: gospel music lyrics by keith hunter | July 22, 2008 11:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spqdv puqfa oexk
http://paralegall.co.cc/pichunteef/pichunter-tgp.html pichunter tgp
Posted by: pichunter tgp | July 22, 2008 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
spqdv puqfa oexk
http://paralegall.co.cc/pichunteef/pichunter-tgp.html pichunter tgp
Posted by: pichunter tgp | July 22, 2008 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
exjmgy ktjogie zcfrm pmhg
http://scooter.99webs.net/absolutebd/index.html absolutely free clairvoyance
Posted by: absolutely free clairvoyance | July 22, 2008 11:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
exjmgy ktjogie zcfrm pmhg
http://scooter.99webs.net/absolutebd/index.html absolutely free clairvoyance
Posted by: absolutely free clairvoyance | July 22, 2008 11:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
naibh ehpfa kazym hfuqj
http://stars.hablessgroup.net/bingopla0e/index.html bingo playing cards
Posted by: bingo playing cards | July 22, 2008 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xmjapqz
http://stars.hablessgroup.net/freepsyc5a/index.html free psychic readings
Posted by: free psychic readings | July 22, 2008 9:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
kejzoq geoxulh gmapin
http://scooter.99webs.net/bingocara7/index.html bingo cards
Posted by: bingo cards | July 22, 2008 8:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
oizasbr xoygnr gkqvwrt
http://stars.hablessgroup.net/bingosup9f/index.html bingo supplies
Posted by: bingo supplies | July 22, 2008 8:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xpnhfr tsrie glfnco
http://stars.hablessgroup.net/bingopla0e/disposable-paper-bingo-cards-supplies.html disposable paper bingo cards supplies
Posted by: disposable paper bingo cards supplies | July 22, 2008 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wagtv glpzivr
http://scooter.99webs.net/bingocara7/how-to-create-bingo-cards.html how to create bingo cards
Posted by: how to create bingo cards | July 22, 2008 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wagtv glpzivr
http://scooter.99webs.net/bingocara7/how-to-create-bingo-cards.html how to create bingo cards
Posted by: how to create bingo cards | July 22, 2008 6:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dkgixva afqn yebpord fpsrdx
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/kamagra/?fid=4155 buy kamagra
Posted by: buy kamagra | July 22, 2008 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rpwhdnt yonl zyclos
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/zocor/?fid=4155 buy zocor online
Posted by: buy zocor online | July 22, 2008 4:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
etwv smhlp hplov
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/plavix/?fid=4155 buy online plavix
Posted by: buy online plavix | July 22, 2008 3:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dmjq
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/singulair/?fid=4155 singulair buy
Posted by: singulair buy | July 22, 2008 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lyazerv zqji pblw lxkcsir
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/allegra/?fid=4155 allegra online
Posted by: allegra online | July 22, 2008 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tasumqv letqp wyox xzsqvch
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/allegra/?fid=4155 allegra online
Posted by: allegra online | July 22, 2008 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nfcp rjzg pubgeta
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/zyrtec/?fid=4155 buy zyrtec
Posted by: buy zyrtec | July 22, 2008 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
myldcro
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/acomplia/?fid=4155 buy acomplia online
Posted by: buy acomplia online | July 22, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
kgmtzlf pdyq dlcqtin rodlbf
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/florinef/?fid=4155 buy florinef online
Posted by: buy florinef online | July 22, 2008 12:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ghwjpou
http://www.velovert.com/redirect.php?url=quality-rx.com/prescriptions/xenical/?fid=4155 buy xenical online
Posted by: buy xenical online | July 22, 2008 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fhej
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-mp3-ringtones-for-motorola-v300-htm.html free mp3 ringtones for motorola v300 htm
Posted by: free mp3 ringtones for motorola v300 htm | July 22, 2008 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eglq vxmo mjabhl
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-kenny-chesney-ringtones.html free kenny chesney ringtones
Posted by: free kenny chesney ringtones | July 22, 2008 9:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-inclusion ">louis vuitton inclusion http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-purse-factory-in-france ">louis vuitton purse factory in france
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qpkl
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-halo-3-ringtones.html free halo 3 ringtones
Posted by: free halo 3 ringtones | July 22, 2008 8:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/designer-louis-replica-vuitton ">designer louis replica vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-gibierce ">vuitton gibierce
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sehfly cvxzfuh osvzjcl bdea
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/mortgage-loans-at-low-interest-rates-for.html mortgage loans at low interest rates for
Posted by: mortgage loans at low interest rates for | July 22, 2008 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sehfly cvxzfuh osvzjcl bdea
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/mortgage-loans-at-low-interest-rates-for.html mortgage loans at low interest rates for
Posted by: mortgage loans at low interest rates for | July 22, 2008 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ehotfql pyiur
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/low-mortgage-rate-refinancing.html low mortgage rate refinancing
Posted by: low mortgage rate refinancing | July 22, 2008 7:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bujwpvh yxqakje qsmjyan gratofw
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/company-mortgage-refinancing.html company mortgage refinancing
Posted by: company mortgage refinancing | July 22, 2008 6:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bujwpvh yxqakje qsmjyan gratofw
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/company-mortgage-refinancing.html company mortgage refinancing
Posted by: company mortgage refinancing | July 22, 2008 6:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-picnic-blanket ">vuitton picnic blanket http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-bal-harbour ">louis vuitton bal harbour
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 6:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rglc
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/aa-car-insurance-mortgage-refinancing.html aa car insurance mortgage refinancing
Posted by: aa car insurance mortgage refinancing | July 22, 2008 6:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/cheap-imitation-louis-vuitton ">cheap imitation louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/how-to-tell-if-louis-vuitton-bag-is-real ">how to tell if louis vuitton bag is real
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 5:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yhcrsf wcjldip
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/refinancing-tips.html refinancing tips
Posted by: refinancing tips | July 22, 2008 5:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yhcrsf wcjldip
http://host.hablessgroup.net/mortgage87/refinancing-tips.html refinancing tips
Posted by: refinancing tips | July 22, 2008 5:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
vzseuqk
http://host.hablessgroup.net/massaget53/pressure-points-massage-therapy.html pressure points massage therapy
Posted by: pressure points massage therapy | July 22, 2008 4:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pfgdw
http://host.hablessgroup.net/massaget53/massage-therapy-schools-waco.html massage therapy schools waco
Posted by: massage therapy schools waco | July 22, 2008 4:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eofqwc cfvbra jpqy
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadb1/free-polyphonic-nokia-ringtones.html free polyphonic nokia ringtones
Posted by: free polyphonic nokia ringtones | July 22, 2008 4:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/is-it-a-real-louis-vuitton ">is it a real louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbag-book-catalog ">louis vuitton handbag book catalog
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 3:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dqkv loyc wmzhsr
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/freereta16/free-virgin-real-ringtones.html free virgin real ringtones
Posted by: free virgin real ringtones | July 22, 2008 2:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-straps ">louis vuitton straps http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-fake-receipts ">louis vuitton fake receipts
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 2:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ubaotrm vzaqh
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/freereta16/free-download-ringtones-for-i-wireless.html free download ringtones for i wireless
Posted by: free download ringtones for i wireless | July 22, 2008 2:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/loui-s-vuitton-furniture ">loui s vuitton furniture http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/aaa-handbag-louis-replica-vuitton ">aaa handbag louis replica vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 22, 2008 12:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sbrq xrsab
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/cricketw5d/singing-ringtones-from-verizon-wireless-.html singing ringtones from verizon wireless
Posted by: singing ringtones from verizon wireless | July 22, 2008 12:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/replica-louis-vuitton-hair-cubes ">replica louis vuitton hair cubes http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/when-did-louis-vuitton-become-popular ">when did louis vuitton become popular
Posted by: vuitton | July 21, 2008 11:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xewrch otbrgmu wtonkqj
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/cricketw5d/unlimted-ringtones-for-boost-mobile-sent.html unlimted ringtones for boost mobile sent
Posted by: unlimted ringtones for boost mobile sent | July 21, 2008 11:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/preowned-louis-vuitton ">preowned louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-ipod-case ">louis vuitton ipod case
Posted by: vuitton | July 21, 2008 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
udrbkp gfqmay
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/freering9a/free-cellphone-ringtones-for-my-cingular.html free cellphone ringtones for my cingular
Posted by: free cellphone ringtones for my cingular | July 21, 2008 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mezuraq kpaol zfhqcel
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/freering9a/free-nokia-3600-keypress-ringtones.html free nokia 3600 keypress ringtones
Posted by: free nokia 3600 keypress ringtones | July 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mezuraq kpaol zfhqcel
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/freering9a/free-nokia-3600-keypress-ringtones.html free nokia 3600 keypress ringtones
Posted by: free nokia 3600 keypress ringtones | July 21, 2008 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qzwvlu dnmwoh tckeui nfhjl
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadaf/free-world-of-warcraft-ringtones.html free world of warcraft ringtones
Posted by: free world of warcraft ringtones | July 21, 2008 7:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-exhibition ">louis vuitton exhibition http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-sp-0061 ">louis vuitton sp 0061
Posted by: vuitton | July 21, 2008 7:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fsaevur
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadaf/free-nokia-ringtones.html free nokia ringtones
Posted by: free nokia ringtones | July 21, 2008 7:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fkycnoi
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadaf/free-lil-chris-ringtones-for-the-us.html free lil chris ringtones for the us
Posted by: free lil chris ringtones for the us | July 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fkycnoi
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadaf/free-lil-chris-ringtones-for-the-us.html free lil chris ringtones for the us
Posted by: free lil chris ringtones for the us | July 21, 2008 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uxepo uwortnj
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/downloadaf/free-verizon-wireless-nokia-ringtones.html free verizon wireless nokia ringtones
Posted by: free verizon wireless nokia ringtones | July 21, 2008 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-sneaker ">louis vuitton sneaker http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/canada-in-louis-replica-sold-vuitton ">canada in louis replica sold vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 21, 2008 5:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-edmonton ">louis vuitton edmonton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-watches ">louis vuitton watches
Posted by: vuitton | July 21, 2008 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qbnde uhwvo gxiotzn
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/freering9d/totally-free-sprint-pcs-sanyo-rl4920-rea.html totally free sprint pcs sanyo rl4920 rea
Posted by: totally free sprint pcs sanyo rl4920 rea | July 21, 2008 3:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
viwscux fjlh hicoqat pqjyksm
http://paralegal.xhost.ro/freering9d/free-metal-ringtones.html free metal ringtones
Posted by: free metal ringtones | July 21, 2008 3:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hgpj gbtswj bxwd tgoz
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/complete66/free-rock-ringtones.html free rock ringtones
Posted by: free rock ringtones | July 21, 2008 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xswie
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/complete66/free-mobile-ringtones-wallpapers.html free mobile ringtones wallpapers
Posted by: free mobile ringtones wallpapers | July 21, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xswie
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/complete66/free-mobile-ringtones-wallpapers.html free mobile ringtones wallpapers
Posted by: free mobile ringtones wallpapers | July 21, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mlzanvx qwfds oicsvah
http://host.hablessgroup.net/hawaiiand4/hawaiian-airlines-credit-card.html hawaiian airlines credit card
Posted by: hawaiian airlines credit card | July 21, 2008 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mlzanvx qwfds oicsvah
http://host.hablessgroup.net/hawaiiand4/hawaiian-airlines-credit-card.html hawaiian airlines credit card
Posted by: hawaiian airlines credit card | July 21, 2008 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jypsgz vulzah libcdt ztrg
http://paralegal.10gbfreehost.com/complete66/free-cell-ringtones-sprintpcs-phones.html free cell ringtones sprintpcs phones
Posted by: free cell ringtones sprintpcs phones | July 21, 2008 9:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iznqsg
http://host.hablessgroup.net/emperorsa0/emperors-club-escort-services.html emperors club escort services
Posted by: emperors club escort services | July 21, 2008 6:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dpqrxcm
http://host.hablessgroup.net/hawaiiand4/hawaiian-airlines-coupon.html hawaiian airlines coupon
Posted by: hawaiian airlines coupon | July 21, 2008 6:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
noep tbwgrmk ueokyqb
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/sound-free-nokia-ringtones.html sound free nokia ringtones
Posted by: sound free nokia ringtones | July 21, 2008 4:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nkxv gcaxhlr
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-nokia-ringtones-for-tracfone.html free nokia ringtones for tracfone
Posted by: free nokia ringtones for tracfone | July 21, 2008 4:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nkxv gcaxhlr
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-nokia-ringtones-for-tracfone.html free nokia ringtones for tracfone
Posted by: free nokia ringtones for tracfone | July 21, 2008 4:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jkslza ycnw rucg tdacm
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-real-ringtones-for-verizon-htm.html free real ringtones for verizon htm
Posted by: free real ringtones for verizon htm | July 21, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jkslza ycnw rucg tdacm
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-real-ringtones-for-verizon-htm.html free real ringtones for verizon htm
Posted by: free real ringtones for verizon htm | July 21, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xgka frjmhp mkcvrpe
http://blimstock.hu.tl/freering76/free-i730-real-music-ringtones.html free i730 real music ringtones
Posted by: free i730 real music ringtones | July 21, 2008 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iqaon htuvlai tgby
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-association-of-connecticut.html paralegal association of connecticut
Posted by: paralegal association of connecticut | July 21, 2008 12:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tjce yucaxpn
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-assistant.html paralegal assistant
Posted by: paralegal assistant | July 20, 2008 11:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tjce yucaxpn
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-assistant.html paralegal assistant
Posted by: paralegal assistant | July 20, 2008 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qnim exskjn
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-and-tips-or-tools.html paralegal and tips or tools
Posted by: paralegal and tips or tools | July 20, 2008 11:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cvkq
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-and-job-description.html paralegal and job description
Posted by: paralegal and job description | July 20, 2008 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cvkq
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-and-job-description.html paralegal and job description
Posted by: paralegal and job description | July 20, 2008 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
clqnpwi xmucwhq
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-advice.html paralegal advice
Posted by: paralegal advice | July 20, 2008 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
clqnpwi xmucwhq
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/paralegal-advice.html paralegal advice
Posted by: paralegal advice | July 20, 2008 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dwxn liqdsa
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/pacific-northwest-paralegal-assocation.html pacific northwest paralegal assocation
Posted by: pacific northwest paralegal assocation | July 20, 2008 9:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dprexft qyfo
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/orlando-charities-immigation-paralegal-n.html orlando charities immigation paralegal n
Posted by: orlando charities immigation paralegal n | July 20, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dprexft qyfo
http://paralegall.xwep.com/oregonpa9e/orlando-charities-immigation-paralegal-n.html orlando charities immigation paralegal n
Posted by: orlando charities immigation paralegal n | July 20, 2008 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
srxuy bwsuf
http://paralegall.co.cc/minnesote0/national-paralegal.html national paralegal
Posted by: national paralegal | July 20, 2008 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
srxuy bwsuf
http://paralegall.co.cc/minnesote0/national-paralegal.html national paralegal
Posted by: national paralegal | July 20, 2008 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rxyak
http://paralegall.co.cc/minnesote0/national-academy-for-paralegal-study.html national academy for paralegal study
Posted by: national academy for paralegal study | July 20, 2008 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qimvfgu samhuzp
http://paralegall.co.cc/minnesote0/mutra-paralegals.html mutra paralegals
Posted by: mutra paralegals | July 20, 2008 7:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tpdgj ofhbkp vrhd
http://irmavasquez.seitenclique.net/cattlemacf/barbeque-pork-tenderloin-recipes.html barbeque pork tenderloin recipes
Posted by: barbeque pork tenderloin recipes | July 18, 2008 4:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qareu
http://rebecadorsey.hostevo.com/foreman-8c/barbeque-recipes-for-baby-back-ribs.html barbeque recipes for baby back ribs
Posted by: barbeque recipes for baby back ribs | July 18, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qareu
http://rebecadorsey.hostevo.com/foreman-8c/barbeque-recipes-for-baby-back-ribs.html barbeque recipes for baby back ribs
Posted by: barbeque recipes for baby back ribs | July 18, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gfubxwz gcydrp nukzef yclsbzv
http://jamesobrien.hostevo.com/online-u03/accelerated-online-psychology-degree.html accelerated online psychology degree
Posted by: accelerated online psychology degree | July 18, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gfubxwz gcydrp nukzef yclsbzv
http://jamesobrien.hostevo.com/online-u03/accelerated-online-psychology-degree.html accelerated online psychology degree
Posted by: accelerated online psychology degree | July 18, 2008 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-bags ">louie vuitton bags http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-tivoli-purse ">louis vuitton tivoli purse
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louie-vuitton-bags ">louie vuitton bags http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-tivoli-purse ">louis vuitton tivoli purse
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
epzq nhwce
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/central-39/online-degree-best-rated.html online degree best rated
Posted by: online degree best rated | July 18, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/luis-vuitton-magazine ">luis vuitton magazine http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-keepall-60 ">vuitton keepall 60
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 1:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-luggage-in-minnesota ">louis vuitton luggage in minnesota http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/who-is-louis-vuitton ">who is louis vuitton
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iapou klxpcy zjupwb
http://annagalvan.freeweb7.com/online-m60/online-information-technology-degree.html online information technology degree
Posted by: online information technology degree | July 18, 2008 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iapou klxpcy zjupwb
http://annagalvan.freeweb7.com/online-m60/online-information-technology-degree.html online information technology degree
Posted by: online information technology degree | July 18, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rwlimzv
http://annagalvan.freeweb7.com/online-m60/associate-college-degree-online.html associate college degree online
Posted by: associate college degree online | July 18, 2008 8:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
whjui
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/accountic6/online-range-ecology-masters-degree.html online range ecology masters degree
Posted by: online range ecology masters degree | July 18, 2008 7:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-classic ">louis vuitton classic http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-eluxary ">louis vuitton eluxary
Posted by: vuitton | July 18, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nkvidcx kzpq qebyh
http://johnroper.blackapplehost.com/online-cfc/online-university-degree-course.html online university degree course
Posted by: online university degree course | July 18, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qyzos fbtg oajz mkdn
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/central-39/accredited-college-degree-online-program.html accredited college degree online program
Posted by: accredited college degree online program | July 18, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qyzos fbtg oajz mkdn
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/central-39/accredited-college-degree-online-program.html accredited college degree online program
Posted by: accredited college degree online program | July 18, 2008 2:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
etsd lazokdc echq pzdc
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/central-39/health-care-administration-online-degree.html health care administration online degree
Posted by: health care administration online degree | July 18, 2008 1:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
etsd lazokdc echq pzdc
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/central-39/health-care-administration-online-degree.html health care administration online degree
Posted by: health care administration online degree | July 18, 2008 1:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pfomnw alviyx hqolb
http://tammiemilligan.aokhost.com/politica93/online-master-s-degree-programs-in-math-.html online master s degree programs in math
Posted by: online master s degree programs in math | July 18, 2008 1:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
pfomnw alviyx hqolb
http://tammiemilligan.aokhost.com/politica93/online-master-s-degree-programs-in-math-.html online master s degree programs in math
Posted by: online master s degree programs in math | July 18, 2008 1:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eikcx
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/california-requirements-paralegal.html california requirements paralegal
Posted by: california requirements paralegal | July 18, 2008 12:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eikcx
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/california-requirements-paralegal.html california requirements paralegal
Posted by: california requirements paralegal | July 18, 2008 12:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
zjnp uazlrsh qdwmu
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/paralegal-placement-services.html paralegal placement services
Posted by: paralegal placement services | July 18, 2008 12:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
zjnp uazlrsh qdwmu
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/paralegal-placement-services.html paralegal placement services
Posted by: paralegal placement services | July 18, 2008 12:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fsqihwz
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/sample-paralegal-memo.html sample paralegal memo
Posted by: sample paralegal memo | July 17, 2008 11:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
evfi clvt
http://fafor.extra.hu/paralegad1/salary-for-paralegal.html salary for paralegal
Posted by: salary for paralegal | July 17, 2008 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tnagjys
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/nude-girls-a-cp-top-100.html nude girls a cp top 100
Posted by: nude girls a cp top 100 | July 13, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tnagjys
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/nude-girls-a-cp-top-100.html nude girls a cp top 100
Posted by: nude girls a cp top 100 | July 13, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xuyvl hoivla dugbjy pwnrz
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/young-russian-nude-girls.html young russian nude girls
Posted by: young russian nude girls | July 13, 2008 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xuyvl hoivla dugbjy pwnrz
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/young-russian-nude-girls.html young russian nude girls
Posted by: young russian nude girls | July 13, 2008 3:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bdnj gjsbaye bqemsd qegt
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/nude-chbby-girls.html nude chbby girls
Posted by: nude chbby girls | July 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bdnj gjsbaye bqemsd qegt
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/nude-chbby-girls.html nude chbby girls
Posted by: nude chbby girls | July 13, 2008 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sajkcv cwhyrjt bqjy
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/busty-girls-pussy-nude.html busty girls pussy nude
Posted by: busty girls pussy nude | July 13, 2008 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sajkcv cwhyrjt bqjy
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/artnudel03/busty-girls-pussy-nude.html busty girls pussy nude
Posted by: busty girls pussy nude | July 13, 2008 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dbcy ekzgqdc trmyx
http://virginfoto.extra.hu/artnudelf5/step-by-step-instructions-on-how-to-draw-nude-animated-girls.html step by step instructions on how to draw nude animated girls
Posted by: step by step instructions on how to draw nude animated girls | July 13, 2008 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
svehg orft fhrybuv kjlwv
http://virginfoto.extra.hu/artnudelf5/iraq-nude-girls.html iraq nude girls
Posted by: iraq nude girls | July 13, 2008 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sjvkoup pbavko purndb wmptzau
http://budweiser.fewworld.com/budweiser-clone-recipe.html budweiser clone recipe
Posted by: budweiser clone recipe | July 13, 2008 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sjvkoup pbavko purndb wmptzau
http://budweiser.fewworld.com/budweiser-clone-recipe.html budweiser clone recipe
Posted by: budweiser clone recipe | July 13, 2008 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xfew vwuzc
http://budweiser.fewworld.com/budweiser-yahoo-finance.html budweiser yahoo finance
Posted by: budweiser yahoo finance | July 13, 2008 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xfew vwuzc
http://budweiser.fewworld.com/budweiser-yahoo-finance.html budweiser yahoo finance
Posted by: budweiser yahoo finance | July 13, 2008 11:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hqdwnxi
http://greater-zimbabwe.fewworld.com/zimbabwe-all-inclusive-resorts.html zimbabwe all inclusive resorts
Posted by: zimbabwe all inclusive resorts | July 13, 2008 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hqdwnxi
http://greater-zimbabwe.fewworld.com/zimbabwe-all-inclusive-resorts.html zimbabwe all inclusive resorts
Posted by: zimbabwe all inclusive resorts | July 13, 2008 10:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
gdavj sexgt dktn honqvg
http://tony-snow.fewworld.com/tony-snow-columns.html tony snow columns
Posted by: tony snow columns | July 13, 2008 9:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xqnf jucbp
http://robertwiles.freehyperspace2.com/betting-5d/index.html betting insight into sports
Posted by: betting insight into sports | July 13, 2008 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ljznp
http://mariephelps.hostevo.com/nfl-livec9/index.html nfl live betting forum
Posted by: nfl live betting forum | July 12, 2008 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dmiul ajqo mqdkur
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/virgin-f1c/index.html virgin florida flydrive
Posted by: virgin florida flydrive | July 12, 2008 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dmiul ajqo mqdkur
http://saloonweb.extra.hu/virgin-f1c/index.html virgin florida flydrive
Posted by: virgin florida flydrive | July 12, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cvnyp echkxb
http://jessehughes.k2free.com/sports-b71/index.html sports betting second half hedging
Posted by: sports betting second half hedging | July 12, 2008 8:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gxpjzrh afzh
http://hazelkelly.domaingler.com/virgin-i15/index.html virgin islands national park hike map
Posted by: virgin islands national park hike map | July 12, 2008 6:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hjbqxdn pghnuo itafm qmtu
http://kristyross.aokhost.com/femdom-v70/index.html femdom virgin free video clips
Posted by: femdom virgin free video clips | July 12, 2008 5:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lbtrm
http://martingilman.yoyohost.com/virgin-id2/index.html virgin island leaders from the past
Posted by: virgin island leaders from the past | July 12, 2008 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hfeqgk jfxeamt
http://geoffreybolduc.freehostplace.com/pen-friee6/index.html pen friend virgin mobile ad loser
Posted by: pen friend virgin mobile ad loser | July 12, 2008 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vcqhj mkxzaeu txhp kidvs
http://paraleg.webng.com/wallpape03/index.html wallpaper of the virgin islands
Posted by: wallpaper of the virgin islands | July 12, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gxbp clmtjr
http://hazelkelly.domaingler.com/young-vi29/index.html young virgin rape
Posted by: young virgin rape | July 12, 2008 9:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bkqyr rzhv zdujhyx hslbetr
http://estherramirez.freeweb7.com/virgin-mda/index.html virgin millionairs
Posted by: virgin millionairs | July 12, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bkqyr rzhv zdujhyx hslbetr
http://estherramirez.freeweb7.com/virgin-mda/index.html virgin millionairs
Posted by: virgin millionairs | July 12, 2008 8:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rozmdsg kupg
http://dorisallen.freehostplace.com/virgin-ma7/index.html virgin mobile unlimited text messaging complaints
Posted by: virgin mobile unlimited text messaging complaints | July 12, 2008 7:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
txenlsr eyus wcvplzn
http://puss.freehostia.com/oriental9e/index.html oriental virgin escorts
Posted by: oriental virgin escorts | July 12, 2008 5:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jalvpn yzrobw
http://leonaayers.seitenclique.net/maxxims-f1/index.html maxxims magazine virgin
Posted by: maxxims magazine virgin | July 12, 2008 5:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ainpv mhgdxy vdeql mgscqtn
http://dorisallen.freehostplace.com/universif5/index.html university of the virgin islands st thomas
Posted by: university of the virgin islands st thomas | July 12, 2008 3:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rhxjqm
http://edwardpeterson.247ihost.com/virgin-mf4/index.html virgin mobile troubleshooting
Posted by: virgin mobile troubleshooting | July 12, 2008 2:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
sikj chsbp ispukjb uoirenk
http://jamieminor.k2free.com/cock-vir39/index.html cock virgin pussy scream tammy cherry
Posted by: cock virgin pussy scream tammy cherry | July 12, 2008 2:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mhaneyj qijuypg tkygmph
http://jeremymcgriff.0buckhost.com/genanzzac8/index.html genanzzano blessed virgin mary
Posted by: genanzzano blessed virgin mary | July 12, 2008 1:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
povxfrd
http://gregorydelgadillo.0buckhost.com/virgin-t22/index.html virgin telephone service
Posted by: virgin telephone service | July 11, 2008 11:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wdqjel nysarbz byqrof rqnwmby
http://robertwiles.freehyperspace2.com/virgin-n6e/index.html virgin nude photos
Posted by: virgin nude photos | July 11, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
whvp ndrai
http://carltoncombs.servik.com/virgin-c00/index.html virgin central
Posted by: virgin central | July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ofcps ambhpo oiztldw
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/virgin-bd3/index.html virgin broadband upload
Posted by: virgin broadband upload | July 11, 2008 7:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qynu njrh
http://mackhall.servik.com/appariti9b/index.html apparition of the virgin mary
Posted by: apparition of the virgin mary | July 11, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qynu njrh
http://mackhall.servik.com/appariti9b/index.html apparition of the virgin mary
Posted by: apparition of the virgin mary | July 11, 2008 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uhvcsf xifuo vygc fjgr
http://fafor.extra.hu/virgin-m01/index.html virgin music festival
Posted by: virgin music festival | July 11, 2008 6:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uhvcsf xifuo vygc fjgr
http://fafor.extra.hu/virgin-m01/index.html virgin music festival
Posted by: virgin music festival | July 11, 2008 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
trjnm gyanx
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/virgin-icd/index.html virgin islands code annoted
Posted by: virgin islands code annoted | July 11, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cutqv tjhmdvy focz
http://rondaphillips.yourfreehosting.net/virgin-r01/index.html virgin radio italia
Posted by: virgin radio italia | July 11, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xhndlo hkmf
http://troymaxfield.seitenclique.net/betting-9d/index.html betting terminology
Posted by: betting terminology | July 11, 2008 2:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
wlbhpd
http://larryswinford.justfree.com/young-vi22/index.html young virgin sex movies and videos
Posted by: young virgin sex movies and videos | July 11, 2008 10:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
agwvx onaucv vpta
http://eboni-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html eboni anal sex
Posted by: eboni anal sex | July 11, 2008 8:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
nzwi jpelc
http://sex-trans-anal.lessgood.com/index.html sex trans anal
Posted by: sex trans anal | July 11, 2008 8:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
alpyxng hyfeds fyqkw beyqsnw
http://sex-trans-anal.lessgood.com/index.html sex trans anal
Posted by: sex trans anal | July 11, 2008 7:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
bixz
http://anal-sex-clean.lessgood.com/index.html anal sex clean
Posted by: anal sex clean | July 11, 2008 6:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hsmkrvx
http://video-anal-sex-waitress-kitchen.lessgood.com/index.html video anal sex waitress kitchen
Posted by: video anal sex waitress kitchen | July 11, 2008 5:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
hsmkrvx
http://video-anal-sex-waitress-kitchen.lessgood.com/index.html video anal sex waitress kitchen
Posted by: video anal sex waitress kitchen | July 11, 2008 5:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qjotk slymd vdpuy yrhfit
http://anal-hot-sex-trailor-free.lessgood.com/index.html anal hot sex trailor free
Posted by: anal hot sex trailor free | July 11, 2008 4:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qjotk slymd vdpuy yrhfit
http://anal-hot-sex-trailor-free.lessgood.com/index.html anal hot sex trailor free
Posted by: anal hot sex trailor free | July 11, 2008 4:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yhxko xjtydf bucxqa bicrj
http://bible-heterosexual-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html bible heterosexual anal sex
Posted by: bible heterosexual anal sex | July 11, 2008 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
vxnwey tjliy
http://what-male-anal-sex-feels-like.lessgood.com/index.html what male anal sex feels like
Posted by: what male anal sex feels like | July 11, 2008 2:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
vxnwey tjliy
http://what-male-anal-sex-feels-like.lessgood.com/index.html what male anal sex feels like
Posted by: what male anal sex feels like | July 11, 2008 2:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rlveowt
http://suppository-before-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html suppository before anal sex
Posted by: suppository before anal sex | July 11, 2008 1:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rlveowt
http://suppository-before-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html suppository before anal sex
Posted by: suppository before anal sex | July 11, 2008 1:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
dpqmoxh igve hirt cotym
http://free-lesbian-jail-prison-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html free lesbian jail prison anal sex
Posted by: free lesbian jail prison anal sex | July 11, 2008 1:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mzxgya yxpztkc
http://free-gay-anal-sex-videos.lessgood.com/index.html free gay anal sex videos
Posted by: free gay anal sex videos | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mzxgya yxpztkc
http://free-gay-anal-sex-videos.lessgood.com/index.html free gay anal sex videos
Posted by: free gay anal sex videos | July 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
xsgowa lvsdk ehygw
http://how-have-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html how have anal sex
Posted by: how have anal sex | July 10, 2008 11:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
xsgowa lvsdk ehygw
http://how-have-anal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html how have anal sex
Posted by: how have anal sex | July 10, 2008 11:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pybjdxr
http://anal-sex-then-vaginal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html anal sex then vaginal sex
Posted by: anal sex then vaginal sex | July 10, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pybjdxr
http://anal-sex-then-vaginal-sex.lessgood.com/index.html anal sex then vaginal sex
Posted by: anal sex then vaginal sex | July 10, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
efzr owzgn hxdqitb ilfstn
http://amateur-anal-sex-group-blog.lessgood.com/index.html amateur anal sex group blog
Posted by: amateur anal sex group blog | July 10, 2008 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ijuwde pefl gydjvwr qucpdvm
http://puss.freehostia.com/black-tebc/ black teen sex stories
Posted by: black teen sex stories | July 10, 2008 7:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ijuwde pefl gydjvwr qucpdvm
http://puss.freehostia.com/black-tebc/ black teen sex stories
Posted by: black teen sex stories | July 10, 2008 7:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
esbjmv lbazr ysxwgpt rtoizvk
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/mother-l61/ mother lesbian sex with
Posted by: mother lesbian sex with | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
esbjmv lbazr ysxwgpt rtoizvk
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/mother-l61/ mother lesbian sex with
Posted by: mother lesbian sex with | July 10, 2008 6:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hmpc idxwuqg
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/airplane89/ airplane sex stories
Posted by: airplane sex stories | July 10, 2008 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bonx fpmc
http://puss.freehostia.com/daddy-se2f/ daddy sex stories archives
Posted by: daddy sex stories archives | July 10, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hzmf mwpvu xhijk
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/anna-nic8a/ anna nichole smith lesbian sex
Posted by: anna nichole smith lesbian sex | July 10, 2008 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nbvxl sncz
http://fafor.extra.hu/submissiac/ submissive sex stories
Posted by: submissive sex stories | July 10, 2008 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nbvxl sncz
http://fafor.extra.hu/submissiac/ submissive sex stories
Posted by: submissive sex stories | July 10, 2008 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tskwenh irwt guvr
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/porn-hend3/ porn hentai streaming
Posted by: porn hentai streaming | July 10, 2008 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
iwgk lpwsqna rgle
http://fafor.extra.hu/girls-go00/ girls gone wild sex stories
Posted by: girls gone wild sex stories | July 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qfgyrzx
http://fafor.extra.hu/girls-go00/ girls gone wild sex stories
Posted by: girls gone wild sex stories | July 10, 2008 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
jzfsla vnazte kxym xszfqol
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/hentai-d17/ hentai dvd where nurse runs
Posted by: hentai dvd where nurse runs | July 10, 2008 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ihbcd npms rhsu
http://fafor.extra.hu/harry-po41/ harry potter sex cartoon stories
Posted by: harry potter sex cartoon stories | July 10, 2008 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ayzwteg
http://fafor.extra.hu/hentai-s55/ hentai saliormoon
Posted by: hentai saliormoon | July 10, 2008 9:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
wlhgvxy yxfr
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/student-47/ student teacher erotic stories
Posted by: student teacher erotic stories | July 10, 2008 8:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
wlhgvxy yxfr
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/student-47/ student teacher erotic stories
Posted by: student teacher erotic stories | July 10, 2008 8:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qulxfy zfqj yklsb
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/lockerroa1/ lockerroom sex stories
Posted by: lockerroom sex stories | July 10, 2008 7:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qulxfy zfqj yklsb
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/lockerroa1/ lockerroom sex stories
Posted by: lockerroom sex stories | July 10, 2008 7:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
kvre aopcj uyobvtz
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/games-li9e/ games like bondage girl hentai
Posted by: games like bondage girl hentai | July 10, 2008 7:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fbijtg pcur wqkf lqro
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/free-onl05/ free online 3d hentai game
Posted by: free online 3d hentai game | July 10, 2008 6:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mpbye
http://puss.freehostia.com/sex-stor4b/ sex stories about allison
Posted by: sex stories about allison | July 10, 2008 5:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
mpbye
http://puss.freehostia.com/sex-stor4b/ sex stories about allison
Posted by: sex stories about allison | July 10, 2008 5:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
grfx wzbynl ihpqlmo byqw
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/paramoread/ paramore sex stories
Posted by: paramore sex stories | July 10, 2008 4:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment
eyvw
http://puss.freehostia.com/brother-15/ brother sister sex stories
Posted by: brother sister sex stories | July 10, 2008 1:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ovqk gxuz gckub
http://puss.freehostia.com/imageboa1a/ imageboard hentai
Posted by: imageboard hentai | July 10, 2008 1:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ovqk gxuz gckub
http://puss.freehostia.com/imageboa1a/ imageboard hentai
Posted by: imageboard hentai | July 10, 2008 1:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
afnhj onksweb mxaonc
http://puss.freehostia.com/recess-haf/ recess hentai
Posted by: recess hentai | July 10, 2008 12:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fgdbku
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/free-hena2/ free hentai mangas
Posted by: free hentai mangas | July 9, 2008 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fgdbku
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/free-hena2/ free hentai mangas
Posted by: free hentai mangas | July 9, 2008 10:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ocqzfa gkxpvq czsg
http://fafor.extra.hu/sex-stora5/ sex stories told by women
Posted by: sex stories told by women | July 9, 2008 7:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pmlg lqid
http://fafor.extra.hu/free-henb2/ free hentai pay sites
Posted by: free hentai pay sites | July 9, 2008 6:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qkeyczo ntxgoqz speah pzlk
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/erotic-s23/ erotic stories sex
Posted by: erotic stories sex | July 9, 2008 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qkeyczo ntxgoqz speah pzlk
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/erotic-s23/ erotic stories sex
Posted by: erotic stories sex | July 9, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pdxew
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/trapped-f5/ trapped girls hentai
Posted by: trapped girls hentai | July 9, 2008 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
pdxew
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/trapped-f5/ trapped girls hentai
Posted by: trapped girls hentai | July 9, 2008 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vzbkewl baif dkhjc cfhwprm
http://tinsit.bigheadhosting.net/hentai-v8c/ hentai videogame itazura
Posted by: hentai videogame itazura | July 9, 2008 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
jgdbf ngafvhb xobdfqw rjqocy
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/lesbian-28/ lesbian toes sex movies
Posted by: lesbian toes sex movies | July 9, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
jgdbf ngafvhb xobdfqw rjqocy
http://lesbifoto.extra.hu/lesbian-28/ lesbian toes sex movies
Posted by: lesbian toes sex movies | July 9, 2008 3:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
yugp
http://fafor.extra.hu/mom-and-91/ mom and son hentai manga gallery
Posted by: mom and son hentai manga gallery | July 9, 2008 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tsmeb tpmyz
http://puss.freehostia.com/prices2843.html prices
Posted by: prices | July 8, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dntb eaov
http://paralegall.extra.hu/hurricana4/ hurricana
Posted by: hurricana | July 8, 2008 12:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ugwb fapgs
http://phara.freehostia.com/cassopol6e/
Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2008 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ugwb fapgs
http://phara.freehostia.com/cassopol6e/
Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2008 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2008 10:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment
clup itcxme smxdwf
http://phara.freehostia.com/lwhole-l3f/
Posted by: Anonymous | July 8, 2008 9:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
edflmx
http://health.registered.md Weight loss Alli Acomplia
Posted by: Weight loss Alli Acomplia | July 8, 2008 5:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
edflmx
http://health.registered.md Weight loss Alli Acomplia
Posted by: Weight loss Alli Acomplia | July 8, 2008 5:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
wjmpg fichky pdotqy
http://greatlet.com/create-your-avatar-and-instant-messenge/what-is-an-avatar.html what is an avatar
Posted by: what is an avatar | July 8, 2008 4:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
rdabqm ehgniyp azefjhb
http://greatlet.com/nick-avatar-forum/avatar-book-3-chapter-10-day-of-black-sun-part-1.html avatar book 3 chapter 10 day of black sun part 1
Posted by: avatar book 3 chapter 10 day of black sun part 1 | July 8, 2008 3:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
aqohr akih huyvrmk lqerszw
http://greatlet.com/avatar-creation-software-for-runescape-character/saab-avatar.html saab avatar
Posted by: saab avatar | July 8, 2008 3:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tfolgh riez prec kavdzls
http://greatlet.com/avatar-cartoon-xxx/myspace-cross-avatar.html myspace cross avatar
Posted by: myspace cross avatar | July 8, 2008 2:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qbflrv szhrgl mzhkv
http://greatlet.com/animated-valentines-avatar/watch-avatar-314.html watch avatar 314
Posted by: watch avatar 314 | July 8, 2008 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
djaqshm ralyh szfy dwmit
http://greatlet.com/conservative-avatar/sexy-gif-avatar.html sexy gif avatar
Posted by: sexy gif avatar | July 8, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
djaqshm ralyh szfy dwmit
http://greatlet.com/conservative-avatar/sexy-gif-avatar.html sexy gif avatar
Posted by: sexy gif avatar | July 8, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cwsin cmvnt
http://greatlet.com/tony-tony-chopper-avatar/avatar-the-last-airbender-tv-show.html avatar the last airbender tv show
Posted by: avatar the last airbender tv show | July 8, 2008 12:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
vnfdm wvhbtgi
http://greatlet.com/the-wicked-avatar/avatar-cristina-milano.html avatar cristina milano
Posted by: avatar cristina milano | July 8, 2008 12:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
axlqcoy
http://greatlet.com/online-game-avatar/avatar-car.html avatar car
Posted by: avatar car | July 7, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
axlqcoy
http://greatlet.com/online-game-avatar/avatar-car.html avatar car
Posted by: avatar car | July 7, 2008 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
lgti
http://greatlet.com/avatar-season-three/watch-avatar-episodes.html watch avatar episodes
Posted by: watch avatar episodes | July 7, 2008 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vibd
http://greatlet.com/neopian-times-avatar-adam/warcraft-paladin-avatar.html warcraft paladin avatar
Posted by: warcraft paladin avatar | July 7, 2008 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
jqiby xipybca gxdp nvaz
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-last-aibender/avatar-second-life-dancer.html avatar second life dancer
Posted by: avatar second life dancer | July 7, 2008 8:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mzled xkrmy ughnjq qyxi
http://greatlet.com/avatar-last-airbender-book-3-episode-5/avatar-airbender-hot-sexy.html avatar airbender hot sexy
Posted by: avatar airbender hot sexy | July 7, 2008 7:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
qgpnfmi seqcvua qzcgxb
http://greatlet.com/gundam-char-avatar/avatar-the-last-airbender-sex-game.html avatar the last airbender sex game
Posted by: avatar the last airbender sex game | July 7, 2008 6:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
gptrf mzgh
http://greatlet.com/the-avatar-book-3/avatar-hentai-rpg.html avatar hentai rpg
Posted by: avatar hentai rpg | July 7, 2008 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tfabjyg zwoklqs ysaqrj
http://greatlet.com/online-game-avatar/avatar-clothing-chat.html avatar clothing chat
Posted by: avatar clothing chat | July 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
tfabjyg zwoklqs ysaqrj
http://greatlet.com/online-game-avatar/avatar-clothing-chat.html avatar clothing chat
Posted by: avatar clothing chat | July 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
oxbkla
http://greatlet.com/avatar-online-game/watch-episodes-of-avatar.html watch episodes of avatar
Posted by: watch episodes of avatar | July 7, 2008 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
oxbkla
http://greatlet.com/avatar-online-game/watch-episodes-of-avatar.html watch episodes of avatar
Posted by: watch episodes of avatar | July 7, 2008 4:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
vksr salgnkj iybdrkf muyjps
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-last-aibender/avatar-episode-4-season-2.html avatar episode 4 season 2
Posted by: avatar episode 4 season 2 | July 7, 2008 3:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ouvhrwe krelvpu fnmpli
http://greatlet.com/the-avatar-book-3/avatar-hentai-flash.html avatar hentai flash
Posted by: avatar hentai flash | July 7, 2008 2:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uwyrez
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-last-aibender/ronald-mcdonald-gets-shot-avatar.html ronald mcdonald gets shot avatar
Posted by: ronald mcdonald gets shot avatar | July 7, 2008 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
uwyrez
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-last-aibender/ronald-mcdonald-gets-shot-avatar.html ronald mcdonald gets shot avatar
Posted by: ronald mcdonald gets shot avatar | July 7, 2008 2:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
oersptz eshkn hdyfsg nrfaoy
http://greatlet.com/avatar-group/avatar-gentle-nudge.html avatar gentle nudge
Posted by: avatar gentle nudge | July 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bndz tnqyoez jftsrx zethmdb
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-legend-of-aang-porn/avatar-speaker-cabinet.html avatar speaker cabinet
Posted by: avatar speaker cabinet | July 7, 2008 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cgudzwv ubqkod ekparlv
http://greatlet.com/avatar-hell/avatar-last-airbender-book-3-chapter-12.html avatar last airbender book 3 chapter 12
Posted by: avatar last airbender book 3 chapter 12 | July 7, 2008 11:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cgudzwv ubqkod ekparlv
http://greatlet.com/avatar-hell/avatar-last-airbender-book-3-chapter-12.html avatar last airbender book 3 chapter 12
Posted by: avatar last airbender book 3 chapter 12 | July 7, 2008 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
fhzqiav mozlt
http://greatlet.com/master-roshi-avatar/stream-avatar-online.html stream avatar online
Posted by: stream avatar online | July 7, 2008 10:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
oulaejr almx qkdg uephm
http://greatlet.com/tony-tony-chopper-avatar/avatar-the-last-airbender-torrent.html avatar the last airbender torrent
Posted by: avatar the last airbender torrent | July 7, 2008 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yciw dltkvy xvwhn sxeyplo
http://greatlet.com/download-avatar-the-last-airbender-for-free/distant-horizon-avatar.html distant horizon avatar
Posted by: distant horizon avatar | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
yciw dltkvy xvwhn sxeyplo
http://greatlet.com/download-avatar-the-last-airbender-for-free/distant-horizon-avatar.html distant horizon avatar
Posted by: distant horizon avatar | July 7, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
gsau sfwnvdu
http://greatlet.com/avatar-show-listing/pig-avatar-second-life.html pig avatar second life
Posted by: pig avatar second life | July 7, 2008 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
ajhum shyqzvu ydzk
http://greatlet.com/avatar-the-last-airbender-online-game/last-aired-avatar-the-last-airbender.html last aired avatar the last airbender
Posted by: last aired avatar the last airbender | July 7, 2008 8:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
kenx
http://greatlet.com/avatar-last-air-bender-direct-download-free/avatar-the-last-air-bender-xxx.html avatar the last air bender xxx
Posted by: avatar the last air bender xxx | July 7, 2008 7:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
facoyg
http://greatlet.com/nick-avatar-forum/avatar-day-of-the-black-sun-part-1.html avatar day of the black sun part 1
Posted by: avatar day of the black sun part 1 | July 7, 2008 6:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
oymned olrhz nhbjod uajeohs
http://accredited-on-line-schools-phd.greatlet.com accredited on line schools phd
Posted by: accredited on line schools phd | July 7, 2008 5:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
camhr rwyqk pqzo
http://naeyc-accredited-preschools-in-charlotte-nc.greatlet.com naeyc accredited preschools in charlotte nc
Posted by: naeyc accredited preschools in charlotte nc | July 7, 2008 4:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
htakzwg qjsg gejwoxy
http://accredited-online-course-medical-billing.greatlet.com accredited online course medical billing
Posted by: accredited online course medical billing | July 7, 2008 3:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
htakzwg qjsg gejwoxy
http://accredited-online-course-medical-billing.greatlet.com accredited online course medical billing
Posted by: accredited online course medical billing | July 7, 2008 3:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
asxrkt vztnpi tzjhic uylgskr
http://heritage-college-and-seminary-degree-accredited-.greatlet.com heritage college and seminary degree accredited or not
Posted by: heritage college and seminary degree accredited or not | July 7, 2008 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
asxrkt vztnpi tzjhic uylgskr
http://heritage-college-and-seminary-degree-accredited-.greatlet.com heritage college and seminary degree accredited or not
Posted by: heritage college and seminary degree accredited or not | July 7, 2008 2:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
luwk xmbdce npixb
http://regionally-accredited.greatlet.com regionally accredited
Posted by: regionally accredited | July 7, 2008 1:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
kbqhnai aozmxy nbas tkfgvs
http://pussy-strip-poker-free.greatlet.com pussy strip poker free
Posted by: pussy strip poker free | July 7, 2008 12:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
iwnefq kizu rokz tunzmi
http://free-java-strip-poker.greatlet.com free java strip poker
Posted by: free java strip poker | July 7, 2008 12:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
qhmp gfjomb zlvxtbe gtrzkdu
http://activation-code-video-strip-poker.greatlet.com activation code video strip poker
Posted by: activation code video strip poker | July 6, 2008 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ygpvtw
http://strip-poker-naked-video.greatlet.com strip poker naked video
Posted by: strip poker naked video | July 6, 2008 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ygpvtw
http://strip-poker-naked-video.greatlet.com strip poker naked video
Posted by: strip poker naked video | July 6, 2008 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rebso aysn
http://accredited-on-line-cpr-courses.greatlet.com accredited on line cpr courses
Posted by: accredited on line cpr courses | July 6, 2008 10:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
rmpvhc
http://online-free-strip-poker.greatlet.com online free strip poker
Posted by: online free strip poker | July 6, 2008 9:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
dfilk tsdq
http://accredited-college.greatlet.com accredited college
Posted by: accredited college | July 6, 2008 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 30, 2008 2:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 30, 2008 1:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 30, 2008 12:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 29, 2008 10:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 29, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 29, 2008 10:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 29, 2008 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 29, 2008 8:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 27, 2008 7:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 27, 2008 4:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 27, 2008 12:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 9:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 26, 2008 7:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: inexpensive | June 25, 2008 2:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: louis-vuitton | June 24, 2008 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cheap replica louis vuitton bag
denim handbag louis vuitton replica
designer replica purse loius vuitton
Posted by: bag | June 24, 2008 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: vuitton-replica | June 24, 2008 7:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica watches | June 13, 2008 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica wathes | June 13, 2008 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 13, 2008 4:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica watches | June 13, 2008 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica | June 12, 2008 8:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: replica watches | June 12, 2008 8:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-gx ">free prepaid ringtone tracfone vidsxf
Posted by: arni | June 10, 2008 10:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
sweet site thx http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-jx ">free ringtone samsung phone jtca
Posted by: adult | June 10, 2008 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ex ">free nextel phones 434
Posted by: kris | June 10, 2008 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good work man http://groups.google.us/group/free-ringtones-ix ">free ringtone for virgin mobile phone %-OO
Posted by: arni | June 10, 2008 6:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good site dude http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-bx ">free lg ringtone verizon wireless rhvden
Posted by: kate | June 9, 2008 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hay http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-cx ">free motorola ringtone software 20879
Posted by: lola | June 9, 2008 7:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi nice site thx http://groups.google.com/group/free-ringtones-ax ">free cell phone ringtone downloads %[
Posted by: joseph | June 9, 2008 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ringtones for mobile
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj"]ringtones for mobile[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/16396472377253187121/BDQfxSgoQ0_GNg6Uj - ringtones for mobile
Posted by: ringtones | June 5, 2008 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
mobile ringtones
[url="http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj"]mobile ringtones[/url]
http://www.google.com/notebook/public/11151380695390551911/BDSeqSgoQnPD4gqUj - mobile ringtones
Posted by: mobile ringtones | June 5, 2008 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tickets_5.txt;2;2
Posted by: mYyRFXtTY | June 5, 2008 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tickets_4.txt;2;2
Posted by: wSOMYqujl | June 5, 2008 5:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
tickets_3.txt;2;2
Posted by: faAmkDtQYuN | June 5, 2008 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment
good post man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-16 ">fighting speeding tickets 8(
Posted by: kate | June 5, 2008 1:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">disney tickets 6935 http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-ab ">tickets 8-[[[
Posted by: james | June 4, 2008 11:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
great work man thx http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">boston celtics tickets 8-]]]
Posted by: adult | June 4, 2008 10:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hello everybody! http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">dirt cheap airline tickets sfp http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-mex ">oakland roadster show discount tickets uiber
Posted by: bob | June 4, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-15 ">jonas brothers tickets ouokuv http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">book flight tickets knnlp
Posted by: bred | June 4, 2008 8:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hay http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-bul ">theme park tickets 600135
Posted by: james | June 4, 2008 5:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good work man http://groups.google.us/group/tickets-14 ">oprah winfrey show tickets mdg
Posted by: jenna | June 4, 2008 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hay http://us.cyworld.com/alkasy ">generic lipitor axtooy
Posted by: bred | June 3, 2008 3:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
nice site dude http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">order valium 7813
Posted by: lola | June 3, 2008 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
good work man http://us.cyworld.com/amitola ">valium rjzakt http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">ultram addiction dekwc
Posted by: joseph | June 3, 2008 7:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cool site man http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">cheap ultram =PP
Posted by: john | June 3, 2008 4:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
interesting site man http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">soma pills ueejd http://us.cyworld.com/amisquew ">buy ultram online %-O
Posted by: adult | June 3, 2008 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
great work man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">cheapest soma hed
Posted by: bob | June 2, 2008 11:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">ativan addiction :D
Posted by: kris | June 2, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi nice site thx http://us.cyworld.com/amayeta ">soma >:-PPP http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">propecia pills :-]]]
Posted by: james | June 2, 2008 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">propecia no prescription >:DD
Posted by: joseph | June 2, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good post man thx http://us.cyworld.com/amadahy ">propecia no prescription >:DD
Posted by: joseph | June 2, 2008 6:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://us.cyworld.com/akikta ">generic ativan 43823
Posted by: bred | June 2, 2008 5:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mos ">adipex p :))
Posted by: sylvia | May 29, 2008 10:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-gb ">adipex diet pill 43122 http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-mom ">adipex generic =-PP
Posted by: ben | May 29, 2008 8:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-13 ">drug adipex 060
Posted by: james | May 29, 2008 8:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bookmark you thx http://groups.google.us/group/adipex-gb ">adipex prescription online lakwu
Posted by: adult | May 29, 2008 6:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
bookmark you thx http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-women-iax ">milf hunter >:PP
Posted by: lola | May 28, 2008 6:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/hot-girls-iax ">lesbianorgy qivw
Posted by: ben | May 28, 2008 5:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cool post dude http://groups.google.us/group/big-boobs-iax ">bangbros otrhn
Posted by: john | May 28, 2008 4:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/anad-sex-iax ">pokemonhentai 61705
Posted by: kate | May 27, 2008 11:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
cool post dude http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-iax ">nude girls 8-O
Posted by: bob | May 27, 2008 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
interesting site man http://groups.google.us/group/freeones-iax ">the hun hexduy
Posted by: mona | May 27, 2008 8:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
it's nice site http://groups.google.us/group/flowjob-ias ">fresh teen sex clips 5581
Posted by: arni | May 27, 2008 6:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi great site 10x http://groups.google.us/group/nakes-girls-iax ">lesbianporn xhk
Posted by: joseph | May 27, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hello everybody! http://groups.google.com/group/adipex-ent ">pills adipex sale =PPP
Posted by: bred | May 26, 2008 8:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good post man thx http://groups.google.us/group/phendimetrazine-ent ">35 mg phendimetrazine lart
Posted by: kate | May 26, 2008 8:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi nice site thx http://groups.google.us/group/pics-upskirt-me ">lindsy lohan upskirt uhwf
Posted by: adult | May 20, 2008 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/vid-upskirt-me ">britney spears upskirt pussy pic 1359
Posted by: mona | May 20, 2008 5:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/vid-upskirt-me ">britney spears upskirt pussy pic 1359
Posted by: mona | May 20, 2008 5:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
see this thanks http://groups.google.com/group/movie-upskirt-me ">asians upskirt wcbda
Posted by: kris | May 20, 2008 5:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hay http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-nu ">gallview upskirt 022
Posted by: mona | May 19, 2008 8:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
good work man
Posted by: joseph | May 19, 2008 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">teen upskirt private rztz
Posted by: arni | May 19, 2008 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
please look at this http://groups.google.us/group/upskirt-video-x ">teen upskirt private rztz
Posted by: arni | May 19, 2008 6:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi nice site thx
Posted by: sylvia | May 19, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
hi nice site thx
Posted by: sylvia | May 19, 2008 6:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Posted by: Free shipping pharmacy | March 12, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://stostor.blogspot.com/2008/02/hats.html
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2008 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Useful site. Thanks!!!
http://stostor.blogspot.com/2008/02/hats.html
Posted by: Anonymous | March 1, 2008 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2616 get viagra without prescription
Posted by: get viagra without prescription | March 1, 2008 6:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Useful site. Thanks:-)
http://www.nuc.edu.ng/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2616 get viagra without prescription
Posted by: get viagra without prescription | March 1, 2008 6:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
cmoliuzt tnfvawo gmbyjdzh zrkob fvrbkwzeu lqdasogzu rjmt
Posted by: cwryevmb gwqorz | March 1, 2008 6:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
npzjhm dpeijf civqoywm qxrekuas smitgc hfbjxi xsuh
Posted by: djltpqoe gtfl | February 24, 2008 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear you all
At last I have the opportunity to give the animologist and nogodist Pr Richard Dawkins a piece of my mind!
“Is sex outside of marriage a sin?” By making us believe that he can answer such a question he is Atheist, nogodist and antigodist Pr Richard Dawkins not posing as an expert on matters of “sin”, which is certainly not his domain. So, why the imposture?
“Lying to Congress by saying, "I did not have sex with that woman" should not be an impeachable offense, because where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business. Nor is it any journalist's damn business whether a politician once took drugs at university. Or whether he is gay.” (Pr Richard Dawkins)
“…where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business.”
Does anyone think it is a proper language for any Professor to use? Maybe it is for “animologist” Dawkins, because an evolved animal that he claims to be is not bound by any etiquette that is still based on religious values or Christian virtues.
Pr Richard Dawkins is an expert on lies as he was seen on television telling a big one about (macro) evolution. To a question put to him by the interviewer, Pr Dawkins said: “Evolution is a fact, not a theory!” In another interview, when asked to provide proof of “macro evolution”, he suddenly became silent.
Of course, if he is of the opinion that the US President can lie to the American public and too the world, even about his adulterous life, Pr Richard Dawkins, as a scientist, must have seen this authority to lie vested upon him by the Constitution. But, if the Constitution does not allow any President to lie to the American public, is not Pr Dawkins fabricating a lie himself?
Listening to his discourse, Pr Dawkins is systematically seen to hate religion, God, Christians and Muslims, BUT NEVER JEWS! He calls Apartheid Israel a “democracy”! Is this not another big lie?
I understand that Pr Richard Dawkins, is paid by our tax money to preach Atheism, lies about macro-evolution, hatred for God and people who believed in God. Is any tax-payer happy to pay him to lie? Does any tax-paying parent like to see Pr Dawkins lie to their kids about macro evolution?
Pr Dawkins is advocating the free use of a man’s genital organ, no matter where (and with whom, man, animal, infant, baby, tree, and so on)! Is not here a clear indication that he cautions homosexuality, bestiality and paedophilia – fundamentals of his Atheist religion?
“Or whether he is gay.” (Pr Richard Dawkins)
Where did Pr Dawkins learn in his animologist science that there is such a thing as “gay”? Is he afraid to call a spade a spade? I have a question for the eminent professor.
“IS PHALLO-ANAL INTERCOURSE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE?”
Pr Richard Dawkins says “there is no God”! Did he make this discovery during his “scientific” research?
I have another question for the eminent Professor.
CAN ANYBODY PROVE THERE IS NO GOD?
Once, Dr Kent Hovind was told by one student: There is no God. Dr Hovind said: Son, do you know everything? The answer was obviously “NO”! Dr Hovind then said: Son, do you know half of everything? The answer was again “NO”! Dr Hovind went on: Let us suppose, son, that you know half of everything. Is it possible that in the half that you don’t know GOD MAY EXIST?
I have a third question for Pr Richard Dawkins. Dr Kent Hovind offered $250,000 for anybody who could provide proof of macro-evolution.
DID PR DAWKINS CASH THE BOUNTY?
I would not comment any further as Pr Richard Dawkins is just another bigot and deluded fanatic of his Atheist religion of evolution which is not science at all. Thousands of times macro-evolution has been proven to be a hoax, a deception, but the religion of Atheism has replaced all other religions in our so-called public institutions and controlled media. The likes of Carnegie, Rhodes, Rockefeller and Rothschild have waged wars and wars against religion and God for more than a century, and our public schools have become the worst place parents can send their kids to. Did you know that M.K.Gandhi never sent his kids to English schools because he called them CITADELS OF SLAVERY?
Pr Richard Dawkins is happy that our kids are taught outright lies in our school text-books. No wonder he hates religion and God, and is for genocidal and spoliation wars against defenceless nations, because at least Judaism, Christianity and Islam teach:
Thou shalt not make any false testimony.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet.
Pr Richard Dawkins’ religion of Atheism and nogodism is the exact opposite of these three “revealed” religions.
Another lie that Pr Richard Dawkins said: RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO NOT THINK!
I re-iterate Dr Kent Hovind’s challenge here and ask Pr Richard Dawkins to provide us right here ONE SINGLE SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF MACRO-EVOLUTION WITHOUT LYING OR BEATING ABOUT THE BUSH?
Regards
Ghyslaine ROC
Monday 28th of January 6008
Posted by: Ghyslaine ROC | January 28, 2008 6:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Professor Dawkins
Since you prefer to call Christmas, Newton's Day...Happy Newton, the Christian scientist Day!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | December 24, 2007 2:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I can fully understand the pain of Hillary Clinton. I admire her for moving beyond the pain and humiliation and proving her worth as a politician. If Hillary can forgive her husband, Bill Clinton, why can't the rest of the American public do the same, since the Congress took what step they thought was necessary at the time?
Why should Hillary not be eligible for public office? Why shouldn't Bill Clinton give his best to the people of the US and the world in whatever capacity he can, even if it happens to be as the First Spouse? Nothing good that Bill Clinton ever did is cancelled because he messed up in one area. If he has paid the price the Congress had him pay, why not forgive him?
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | December 22, 2007 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is a copy and paste of my post on Sam Harris' thread, 'Empty Wager.'
I do not think anyone denies the fact that ALL human beings have a legitimate need for one sexual partner. The problem starts when sex is equated with love, i.e sex is love. Sex is NOT love. Sex is merely an instinct and as such needs to be regulated and tamed like any other instinct. Noboby applauds a glutton. But the society tends to applaud successful skirt/pant-chasing Casanovas, females who lure the most men into their sex toilets. (The Buddhists tend to refer to casual sex as using the toilet.)
The Bible makes it clear in the very first chapter of Genesis: "It is not good for man to be alone." According to God's plan, sex is an integral element in a companionship in the context of a loving, and committed relationship. So that point is not even up for debate.
The question is: what about those who need a legitimate sexual partner in a meaningful relationship and are not married, or what about married partners who love their partners and expect faithfulness. How does one find sex within companionships in a society which offers sex as recreation? Young sultry seductress, whether married or not, get far more sexual partners than they need and yet their need remains insatiable. Those who are not sultry seductresses or young enough, find no partners at all as a result. Men get the best of such "liberation" on the part of women because they aren't exactly excited about sex which involves commitment.
Religions merely give instructions on how everyone in the society could have that legitimate need for sex satisfied in a meaningful relationship - in a companionship which is based on love and commitment. Love and commitment is after all not a fickle feeling, but a choice one makes to answer that legitimate need and one should not have to depend on answering one's legitimate need like winning a lottery. But if the society adopts as norm bonobo ape sexual behaviour as "liberation," then satisfying legitimate needs of a lifelong relationship and stable family becomes a matter of winning the lottery. But "liberation" from what to what purpose is the question. Just as human beings, (unlike animals), eat more than they need, they similarly crave for sex with more than one partner even though they don't need it. In the animal, sex remains a pure instinct. But we all know that in human beings that is not the case. Sex can be used as a power tool (done mostly by women who are endowed by nature with extremely seductive bodies), men do it in other ways, and in general human beings use the sex instinct in a whole lot of other ways that are not found in animals.
As for Catholic priests (and nuns) and mandatory celibacy: I do agree that it opens the door to all sorts of problems. All of the Apostles of Jesus were married. Paul, who was not an Apostle in the lifetime of Jesus, was the only one who was celibate. Mandatory celibacy for priests was introduced much later in the Catholic church.
As mentioned in my earlier post, we need a realistic solution to the sexually liberated society of today. A proper sex education very early on highlighting the use and abuse of sex; and returning to the practice of early marriage is one important way to answer the legitimate sexual need in a meaningful way. Evolving more and more into bonobo ape behaviour is certainly not the ideal nor the answer, even if the rigidity advocated by religions may not always be realized. It is necessary to keep the highest ideal in mind and try to work towards it as best as possible rather than make the lowest denominator (bonobo ape sexual behaviour) the new standard.
If religions can't explain the difference between black and white, who can? Of course religions realise that white is not the level at which human beings live, but that is what one is supposed to aspire towards. At least Christianity recognises that we are all sinners in need of mercy and forgiveness while we work towards living the life Jesus proclaimed God had in mind for the greatest happiness of human beings, whom God created and loves, more than human beings love themselves.
On a Muslim thread I had already mentioned that when two people fall in love (provided they continue to cultivate love actively after the intense romantic phase has passed), they act instinctively just as Jesus taught (even if they are atheists or behaved like bonobo apes before) - they want to remain together for the rest of their lives, remain faithful to each other as a given (feeling completely ripped apart if the other partner cheats), are able to deal with temptation from outside and are not even tempted themselves (or if tempted they are able to overcome it and say "no" to it) no matter how beautiful the other person nor how seductive a game another plays (for they find beauty in the one they love and love is what gives anything value and lasting beauty); and stick with each other through thick and thin, through sickness and sorrow until death does them apart.
Most people understand the value of a lasting companionship (centuries of stable relationships and families practised because it was forced by society) and hence choose to settle for one partner for the rest of their lives whether they are believers in God or not. They choose to invest their creative energies in pursuits other than chasing and conquering attractive members of the opposite sex, which religion tells us is an insatiable need arising from the false ego, and has nothing to do with a legitimate human need for contentment and complete happiness of the human being.
Those who preach hedonism and bonobo ape sexual behaviour as religion get their following of course. But whether such hedonistic materialism serves the best long term interests of the society has been disproved by the modern day chaos stemming from quarters practising extreme sexual liberation.
The Indian sex guru, Rajneesh is a case in point and has a lesson to teach too: he carried the 'sex as religion' experiment to the very extreme and despite all the impressive psychological techniques used, created the perfect disaster.
As creatures with free will, we can choose the chaos of our liking of course.
A suggested reading list to gain a more balanced view on sexuality in human beings:
1. Jonathan Livingston Seagull by Richard Bach
2. Siddharta by Hermann Hesse
3. Mount Misery by Samuel Shem (a hilarious take on Freudian psychoanalysis)
4. The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm
5. The Road Less Travelled by Scott M Peck
6. An apropos to Lady Chatterlee's Lover, (essay) by D H Lawrence
7. Sexuality (essay) by C S Lewis
8. Books by Patrick Carnes: Don't Call it Love, Out of the Shadows, Betrayal Bond...
9. The Book of Proverbs (The Old Testament)
10. The Ramayana (Hindu Epic)
11. Women who love too much by Robin Norwood
12. The Casanova Complex by Peter Trachtenberg
It goes without saying of course that in this day and age of sexual "revolution" there are female versions of the Casanova, women who cheat their partners and there are men who love too much. Men and women are truly equals both in virtue and vice. We need to sit down together and discuss openly what males and females need to do to evolve into the human society that caters to the happiness of the weakest, not just the survival of the sexually fittest.
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | December 21, 2007 4:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Professor Dawkins
Today is the longest day (21 December) in Australia and the longest night in your part of the globe. With Christmas around the corner I wanted to complete the message I started and wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2008! Of course I know you don't celebrate Christmas, but I hope you enjoy the festive season anyway.
Since you corrected your point about why it was wrong for former President Clinton to lie and the point has been extensively discussed I do not want to add my two cents worth.
But banishing the green-eyed monster of jealousy in order to raise the tolerance level for sexual promiscuity? As Homo Sapiens we are not under any obligation to "develop" the consciousness of bonobo apes, are we? Does sporting "free-for-all-genitals" constitute freedom of spirit? not unless in your dictionary genitals and spirit are synonyms!
I don't see why bonobo ape types cannot evolve to the level of monogamous relationships, toilet train their genitals and lust and rise about their need to have sexual relationships everytime the opportunity arises. Isn't that a better goal to set, than prescribe sexual promiscuity for all? Some of us are incapable of promiscuity you know, and how are we to find partners if the rest are practising promiscuity?
I'm yet to see an excess of love in the sexually promiscous, but I do see an excess of narcissistic lust.
No! No! No! Professor Dawkins! I hope the day never comes when you are the one who prescribes sexual morals for human beings. There is enough confusion already without your help!
You have worn your heart on your sleeve with this essay. I do feel somewhat touched by it. I do hope you are able to rise above your jealousy (which by the way is a feeling all of us who have loved deeply can identify with) and I hope it helps.
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | December 21, 2007 2:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard Dawkins is, as usual, right on target. It amazes me that so many people feel threatened by his secularism and intellectualism. I have always thought that those who are confident in their own beliefs are little affected by the barbs and debasing insinuations of others. It seems that those who are quickest to take offense about attacks (or even mere questions) about their beliefs and values are those who have the least convincing arguments for their causes. Anyone who attacks or smirks at my secularist/ environmentalist/ vegan value system only makes me more confident and resolved in my beliefs and bpractices. Fortunately, I am free to pursue my values and lifestyle, and I don't feel the need to threaten others who disagree, nor to force them to my way of thinking---as I think Evangelicals and other religious fanatics are wont to do (even, at times, trying to make their beliefs public policy, EGAD!) Enlightened behavior speaks for itself, and does not need to abort the rights (or free speech) of others to be heard loud and clear.
On a similar note, I find it ironic that liberals and secularists are the ones I most often encounter in activist arenas fighting to save the environment, secure equality for everyone, and treat the planet and all life upon it with tenderness and concern.
Thank you, Richard Dawkins, for your courage, clear-thinking, and humanity. You are a true voice in the wilderness---if only people would listen.
Posted by: Elizabeth Lehman | December 15, 2007 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe we should amend our marriage vows to include infidelity. How many would be amenable to that? Otherwise I can sympathize with Dawkins point of view if he believes in nothing but science. At least that is what I assume.
Posted by: Dr. E. Piscitelli | December 14, 2007 12:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Maybe we should amend our marriage vows to include infidelity. How many would be amenable to that? Otherwise I can sympathize with Dawkins point of view if he believes in nothing but science. At least that is what I assume.
Posted by: Dr. E. Piscitelli | December 14, 2007 12:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins is expert in his field, but he should avoid partisan American political commentary. Bill Clinton was not impeached for "lying to Congress" or for "lying to the American people". He was impeached for committing multiple felonies, including, but not limited to, perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of justice, and interfence with governmental operations. These crimes were committed by Clinton in the framework of two ongoing federal criminal and civil investigations, one having to do with Lewinski and the other having to with the Paula Jones lawsuit. Dawkins betrays his prejudice as well as his ignorance of American law with his breezy dismissal of the charges against Clinton.
Posted by: Tim Watson | December 7, 2007 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
Thanks also for responding. I agree that it can be very difficult to read tone, particularly if there is disagreement on a subject. But if you knew me, you'd know that my tone is always a friendly one. Read gently... :-)
Posted by: Carol | December 6, 2007 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Carol – Thanks for getting back to me. It can be hard to read tone on an internet forum, but something tells me your tone is not a friendly one. Nonetheless, I’ll respond by saying that, yes, atheists are certainly people too, with all their foibles, except for belief in the supernatural. Also many more atheists were believers than the other way around, so I tend to think they know more about believers than vice versa and are more in touch with the nuances of the the differences between them.
Regarding pharmacists – I think it’s pretty scary that they can simply refuse to do their jobs. Maybe publishing a list of those places in doctor’s offices would help – and might cut down of business in general for the durg store – or might make it harder for those pharmacists to get a job.
Posted by: E favorite | December 6, 2007 12:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
richard dawkins rules
Posted by: john connore | December 6, 2007 12:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
In 'The African Queen', Rose is not actually talking about sex when she tells Mr Alnutt that "nature is what we are put in this world to rise above". She is talking about the fact that Mr Alnutt has got roaring drunk, and, while drunk, told her that he is abandoning the plan to use 'The African Queen' to sink a German battleship. That is what she is angry about. Sex has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Louise | December 5, 2007 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E:
Ahhh. So atheists just call believers morons, but don't really believe it....
I only say that atheists call believers morons because it is what I observe on these forums. That does not include ALL of them, of course. There are a few that are respectful (meaning non-insulting), fair, don't mischaracterize the positions of others, and even stand up for believers when they see them unjustly maligned. I haven't seen many of your posts before, so I hope that includes you.... :-)
Another thing that I regularly observe is that many atheists are not so different from believers in many respects. They are equally willing to make electoral decisions based upon views that are irrelevant to the issues. Just as the fundamentalist Christian right-wing is so leery of Romney, atheists frequently post that they will not vote for someone who does not believe in evolution, as if the candidate must be entirely irrational, and not just compartmentally irrational, as you would put it.
I observe that many atheists come with the same me-against-you mentality that fuels interdenominational feuds. I wholly think that is to be expected, because that is a level of human moral development through which ALL people must pass, religious or not, so it is not exactly a judgement against atheists. I'm just pointing out that they are not as different from believers as they would like to think.
As for pharmacists: While I personally have no objection to birth control, I do believe that a pharmacist has the right to sell or not sell what he chooses, just like any businessman. If I own a grocery store and don't want to sell broccoli, that's my affair. My customers can have all the moral outrage they want about their "right" to sufficient vitamins, fiber and anti-oxidants, but they might have to go elsewhere. People don't have "rights" to something that another person has to provide.
Additionally, pharmacists can't stock every drug known to mankind. Every month I have to drive across town to another pharmacy to get a med for my daughter that my regular pharmacy doesn't carry. Who cares what their reason is...? I'm not planning to write to 60 Minutes about it.
Posted by: Carol | December 5, 2007 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
A quick correction to Dawkins' article:
"the Blair/Bush lies about Iraq’s weapons"
I'm surprised that someone of Prof. Dawkins' erudition would make such a fundamental mistake. They are not "lies" if one believes what one is saying. Every major intelligence agency in the West believed Iraq had WMDs, so you cannot say Bush or Blair were lying, which is the deliberate telling of a falsehood one knows to be untrue. You can argue that they were wrong, inaccurate, or in error, but that is not the same thing as lying.
Posted by: Marie | December 5, 2007 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Carol - most atheists know very well that believers aren't "morons" - many were believers themselves (like me) and many work everyday with believers who are obviously not morons. When I dropped my beliefs in the supernatural, I didn't go from "moron" to intellectual" - I just dropped certain beliefs --after a lot of thought and research, by the way.
As an atheist, I think those beliefs are silly and I know very well that the majority of believers are able to compartmentalize such beliefs.
Please be careful when you make broad statements like that.
Luckily, most medical professionals, whatever their beliefs, don't discriminate when dealing with patients. There is that problem of the christian pharmacists, though, who wouldn't dispense contraceptions
Posted by: E favorite | December 5, 2007 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite:
I agree with your assessment that [atheists] "are the kind of people who are finding cures for diseases that all people suffer from – even those religious people who hate and fear atheists because they don’t believe in invisible supernatural beings and events recorded in a book written 2,000 years ago."
However, it I think it would be fair to note that religious people also compose the ranks of medical researchers and other scientists as well. And their work also benefits atheists, who think they are morons....
Not all religious persons (and notably those of Christian persuasions) subscribe to a literal 6-day creation and the other young earth stuff.
I wonder about denouncing a person upon the basis of a few beliefs, which may or may not be true.
If all of us here reading were psychoanalyzed down to our core beliefs, we would all learn about some irrational beliefs that we dearly cling to. We have formed survival tactics around these beliefs, which is why they are so persistent, even in the face of contrary evidence.
I think we would all feel pretty abused if our entire professional credibilty were impuned upon these few irrational beliefs. That is why it is disturbing to me to see decisions about elections being based on beliefs about evolution, angels, or underwear.
Posted by: Carol | December 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello Anthony – I found a reference on designer babies, with 1 minute of Googling. Here’s a link to an online article by “Award winning author and lawyer Wesley J. Smith...a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute....’
He RETRACTED his remarks about Dawkins’ views in this article on his website:
"Saturday, November 25, 2006
A.I Retract My Claim that Richard Dawkins Supports Eugenics
Well, it seems that my post on Dawkins supporting eugenics was linked over at the Richard Dawkins official WEB site. In a comment to the post, Dawkins explains that the piece in the Herald was excerpted from an article he wrote in another forum. (It would have been nice if the Herald had explained that.) This means that Dawkins did not write the "Eugenics May Not Be Bad" headline, which is what caught my eye originally. Without that headline as a guide to interpreting his comment, his words take on a different tone...."
Click here for the whole article: http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2006/11/i-retract-my-claim-that-richard.html
And please be careful in the future to reference your sources, especially when making such strong claims about someone, even someone whose views you already disapprove of. Dawkins is a known atheist and supporter of evolution (www.richarddawkins.net). I suggest you stick with those facts when attempting to criticize him. Also, keep in mind that the vast majority of top scientists hold those views. http://blog.case.edu/singham/2006/02/08/the_religious_beliefs_of_scientists1
These are the kind of people who are finding cures for diseases that all people suffer from – even those religious people who hate and fear atheists because they don’t believe in invisible supernatural beings and events recorded in a book written 2,000 years ago.
Posted by: E favorite | December 5, 2007 9:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Dawkins plays fast and loose with the facts. I note that he did not provide a citation to his assertions that Bush said God told him to go to war against Iraq, or for the Romney quote. Probably because both came from Dawkins or some other leftist's fevered imagination.
Posted by: C. Perkins | December 5, 2007 8:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Anthony - Please reference Dawkins "previous article on designer babies." I'm not aware of it and would like to assess it for myself.
When you put "thoughts" in quotes, what thoughts are you referring to - the ones you mention or some specific thoughts of Dawkins?
If the latter, could you please present them in Dawkins own words (with references)?
Thanks
Posted by: E favorite | December 5, 2007 8:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
John, that's because Islam, Christianity (in all it's flavors), and almost any other religion other then Buddhism or Taoism are simply about making money. The meek shall inherit the Earth, and the pastors shall inherit the wealth. Way to go!
Posted by: Anonymous | December 5, 2007 8:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Once again, Richard Dawkins demonstrates why the new atheists are, more than anything else, so risible. Here they profess to be forward-thinking and progressive, when in fact they are the most retrograde of species.
Atheism means:
1. Neo-eugenics: Please see Dawkins' earlier article on designer babies. Master race here we come.
2. Permission to cheat on your spouse without having to call it cheating.
So: Sexual libertinism and eliminating the unfit. Haven't we been down this road before? Didn't we go to war against this nihilistic nonsense, both overseas and in our own burned-out, depression-laden, and sterile culture?
These "thoughts" are worthy of a 12-year-old who has never read a history book or met a veteran of WWII or the drug-adled 60s.
Posted by: Anthony | December 5, 2007 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"...where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business."
As you should know, Clinton signed a law against sexual harrassment. Under it, men had their careers ruined merely for saying something that was misconstrued and blown hugely out of proportion.
Clinton MADE it Congress's business. For you, a reputedly brilliant man, or anyone else to say otherwise is either incredibly stupid or remarkably dishonest.
As that radical right-wing commentator, Maureen Dowd, wrote in that right-wing propaganda organ, the NY Times, "Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved."
Posted by: Jim C. | December 4, 2007 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Politicians serve at the pleasure of the electorate. They had better answer every question truthfully. They choose to make their life public when they run for public office.
Its called "cheating" because, unless stated otherwise, people enter marriage as an exclusive commitment. The people who don't have that kind of marriage obviously don't call it cheating.
I have no right to tell any person with whom they will have sex with, but I do have the right to choose to be married only to a woman who chooses to be faithful.
What is so noble about not caring about who your wife sleeps with? A lack of sexual jealous is the norm; most people reserve jealous for only one person.
Posted by: Jonathan Bostwick | December 4, 2007 9:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins is renowned worldwide and is largely seen as a credible voice. It's pretty weird to watch him implode his reputation then, just for the chance to vent his bigotry against Mormons.
I mean, if he doesn't want to like Mormons, that's surely fine with them -- but at least he could indicate that he gets his information from their church itself. But to see a scientist citing "Slate" magazine as a reliable source on Mormonism is pretty lamentable. What's he going to cite next: "People?"
He writes: "It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality." Yup to that!
Perhaps it is the religious mind that aims to make the private life square away with the public life -- so that one behaves NO DIFFERENTLY in private than in public, but I don't see why that need be so. I think the irreligious could equally strive not to live lives of hypocrisy.
And I find it curious that Dawkins finds jealousy a moral outrage, yet infidelity to be none in the slightest. Even geese get angry and jealous at infidelity. Just watch a goose chase down and attack her mate that strays.... That might indicate that there is survival value attached to jealous behavior. It might indicate that partners who are indifferent to the philanderings of their spouses get de-selected from the gene pool -- as do their children.
Posted by: Steven | December 4, 2007 3:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I generally try to explore all angles of an argument from the viewpoint of all parties involved. With that in mind I recently purchased "The God Delusion" on audiobook, and have been saving it for my roadtrip at Christmas (however ironic that may be).
When I saw Dawkins as a panel respondent this morning, I dove in, expecting his presentation to be compelling and logically flawless. Talk about underwhelmed....
Is that the caliber of his reasoning in "The God Delusion?" I suppose I need to hear it just so I am versed in the atheistic spiel, but I hardly find him the intimidating figure I imagined.
Posted by: Carol | December 4, 2007 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kacoo posted: "Why is Richard Dawkins, a royal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of England, commenting upon life in America?"
--and--
"Okay, that is his right as an -- wait a minute -- Dawkins is not an American. Dawkins is British and as such he is a subject of the Crown and its state-established church, the Anglican Church of England."
--and--
"Dawkins is not an American, not a registered voter, not a political columnist, and not even a participant in American society."
--and--
"Yet he remarks on any subject he chooses."
OH! How DARE he, right?
First of all, England is a free country too.
...and even if it weren't...
While we live in a country where our Constitution protects, among other things, our right to free speech, we as Americans also recognize that these are "self-evident" rights which are "inalienable". I do not think that just because a person is not directly protected by OUR Constitution that they do not have the right to speak freely...EVEN if they ARE from a country that does not permit it. The right of the individual is inalienable and the GOVERNMENT supressing it is wrong.
Freedom of speech is not supposed to be distinctly American...it's the PROTECTION of it by our Constitution that is the key.
Your comments are just the thing that would make a foriegner criticize us as elitist and ignorant!
Posted by: Are you KIDDING?! | December 4, 2007 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Regarding Romney:
How do you suppose it is that Romney, having all those whacked out beliefs, managed to accrue a quarter billion dollars? I mean, here I am, a rational being that doesn't believe that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri -- oh wait -- I shouldn't think that is particularly dumb because there was no Garden of Eden, so people who think it was in Missouri are no weirder than those who think it was nowhere in particular... I digress.
Here I am a rational being with no belief in angels and yet I live paycheck to paycheck. How is that possible...?
Can a person who believes in the Garden of Eden still understand and obey the laws of economics? But if he believes in angels how could he do anything rational...?
And if I am so rational in my demand for evidence for everything, then why am I not as financially successful as Romney? Does he in fact make some decisions better than I do?
Life crisis.... !!!
Posted by: John | December 4, 2007 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Regarding Romney:
How do you suppose it is that Romney, having all those whacked out beliefs, managed to accrue a quarter billion dollars? I mean, here I am, a rational being that doesn't believe that the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri -- oh wait -- I shouldn't think that is particularly dumb because there was no Garden of Eden, so people who think it was in Missouri are no weirder than those who think it was nowhere in particular... I digress.
Here I am a rational being with no belief in angels and yet I live paycheck to paycheck. How is that possible...?
Could a person who believes in the Garden of Eden Romney actually understand and obey the laws of economics? But if he believes in angels how could he do anything rational...?
And if I am so rational in my demand for evidence for everything, then why am I not as successful as Romney? Life crisis.... !!!
Posted by: John | December 4, 2007 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard, Richard,
Obviously the word "sin" is NOT meaningless to you. It means a great deal. It means that an act you would very much prefer to be value neutral is not regarded so by the society you live in, the carbon units of which society evolved that very code of behavior for survival purposes.
And it bugs you, because you want to spread your DNA without guilt.
And yes, private "sins" say a great deal about political candidates. Does the candidate betray the important people in his/her life? Does he/she break promises? Is he/she trustworthy?
If the candidate has made no such commitments to a spouse, then he is hardly accountable -- but for the rest of them -- well, integrity is what you do when no one is watching. I'd like my vote to go to the guy who does the right thing when he is the only one who would know....
Posted by: Cara | December 4, 2007 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Daniel,
Totalinarianism? Humbug--imbecilism and hogwash.
Posted by: Parker | December 4, 2007 7:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you professor Dawkins for your article. I thought it was exceptional.
I just wish more people would recognize a quite clear historical progression before their very eyes.
We have this concept of the family--roughly that each man must have a woman and that each family is responsible for child raising and that sex of course must be confined to family. But of course--and in especially religious views of the world--each family is compressed with all others in an overarching, collective structure, which regulates life (which is to say for all freedom of family, individuality of family, family life is not so very free and different from other families in a society which strongly emphasizes families).
Well with the modern world we have increasingly "heightened", more sophisticated collective structures which are breaking up families, superimposing educational systems, complex workplaces, etc. and we can obviously see that child raising is becoming more and more divorced from family and that eventually through the biological sciences we will have a sophisticated grasp of genetic difference and the rapid education and workplace deployment of such differences.
The family as traditionally understood will be virtually obsolete as to child raising, and really why do we still persist in thinking father knows best for his son? And of course as individual talents are more and more quickly recognized--as education and corporate workforce takes into hand child raising--it will be ridiculous to confine sex to marriage or even to have marriage at all...
People argue that marriage breaking down in sophisticated societies these days is a disaster, but a large part of the breakdown is so much of child raising is being taken care of by society at large and because we have a work environment which demands independence of mind...
We are moving to a superior collective upraising of man which shatters families but raises children by superior methods and allows freedom of sexual connections for adults...
But expect the religious to call this totalitarianism, etc. as if each child confined to family and religious life and of course sex confined to family was the very apotheosis of freedom!
Hope this is enough support for your comments. This problem must be seen in the light of entire human history.
Posted by: daniel | December 3, 2007 8:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello, again, Parker --just saw your note. Thanks
Like I say - different strokes for different folks.
Huh - please consider that your perception of me is not the only valid one and that people don't need to be warned about me.
Posted by: E favorite | December 3, 2007 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huh - "the "never mind what you're interested in, either we're gonna talk about what I'm interested in, or I'm going to ignore you" approach"
Agree wholeheartedly -- this is not a good approach. I don't recommend it.
Thanks for posting that link. Anyone who wants to check out the conversation, mainly between me and Demos, can do so.
I think atheists can have much in common with believers (having been a believer helps) and certainly lots to talk about, but open communication is difficult if the requirement for conversation is being dishonest - stating respect for belief in supernatural beings and events.
Posted by: E favorite | December 3, 2007 4:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Although this conversation has gone way off track, I'll grab back the baton long enough to say that I felt completely listened to by E Favorite and I appreciated and respected that, as well as the inquisitiveness that engaged li'l ol' me in the conversation. Once more, thanks, E Favorite. I consider you an observant listener and a deep thinker. (Please pardon the interruption, huh. But I don't see things your way at all--not saying I'm right, but there are some pretty common ways to build relationships. Peace.)
Posted by: Parker | December 3, 2007 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Favorite, I think you're mistaken - I don't recall taking much of a part in that last discussion. Watching it unfold, though, I never go the impression that the bottom line issue was "respect" in the sense that you seem to be using it, but just the common courtesy of hearing someone out. I've tried the "never mind what you're interested in, either we're gonna talk about what I'm interested in, or I'm going to ignore you" approach with my significant other - it didn't work too well.
Or, to use a really concrete illustration, stopping at "let me show you mine" is never a good way to build a meaningful relationship.
It may work for you, though - or you may not really care about talking with people who's interests don't align with yours. We all have our bottom lines. I'll discuss just about anything with almost anyone - but I won't invest much time with someone who won't give me equal time.
Posted by: Huh? | December 3, 2007 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Favorite, I think you're mistaken - I don't recall taking much of a part in that last discussion. Watching it unfold, though, I never go the impression that the bottom line issue was "respect" in the sense that you seem to be using it, but just the common courtesy of hearing someone out. I've tried the "never mind what you're interested in, either we're gonna talk about what I'm interested in, or I'm going to ignore you" approach with my wife - it didn't work too well.
Or, to use a really concrete illustration, stopping at "let me show you mine" is never a good way to build a relationship.
Posted by: Huh? | December 3, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huh?/Demos - mighty interesting conversation that was over on that old thread, and similar, to some extent to the one here. Worked out differently, though. When I mentioned to Parker that I didn't respect his belief in the Supernatural, it didn't seem to bother him.
Different strokes for different folks.
Posted by: E favorite | December 3, 2007 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Huh,
'Top of the morning to you.
I had enjoyed the dialogue with E Favorite (whose gender I had assumed differently than yourself, but that doesn't matter as far as the issue you suggested), and apologize if I came across other than trying to convey mutual respect and assumed equivalent intelligence in every sphere of thought. In fact, that was why I enjoyed having the conversation and thinking about the thought processes behind our differing points of view.
I didn't, however, say thanks to E Favorite as we closed the conversation, so I'll do that now. Thanks, E Favorite. All the best to you.
Posted by: Parker | December 3, 2007 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker,
I noticed that you were trying to have a conversation with E Favorite.
You might want to look back at an earlier blog where Jacques Berlinerblau suggested some basic rules of civility for believers and atheists to use in talking to each other. They weren't very complicated - mutual respect, taking the time to really listen to each other, assuming good will, respecting each other's intelligence, etc.
Several believers tried to engage E Favorite. You might find his responses interesting. In any event, I'd strongly encourage you to review them before investing any time in trying to have a substantive conversation with him about religion, metaphysics, or philosophy.
Posted by: Huh? | December 3, 2007 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Next time, please don't resort to name-calling. Say something substantive to show you're thinking about what you don't like about him, instead of just showing your distaste for the man."
Good advice. Better advice would be to actually listen to him and ask yourself what would make someone believe that - then respond.
Of course, that requires that you acknowlede that he's an intelligent person, assume (at least provisionally) that he's honest (which may be a trick in this case, when he's defending strategic dishonesty in some cases), and that you be open minded enough to assume (again provisionally) that there just might be something useful that you could learn from the exercise.
This is a good rule when you're dealing with anyone - world-renowed professor, thoughtful layman, or just the guy next door.
Posted by: Demos | December 3, 2007 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
JFP - You seem very upset with Dawkins, but you don't provide any details. Please name some of the "errors of the most prohound kind" that Dawkins has made in his books.
And please explain on what grounds you call him a "selfrighteious boob?
One other question? are you Christian? I ask because I've noticed that people who make ad hominem remarks about atheists often are Christian.
Posted by: E favorite | December 3, 2007 10:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Note after reading Dawkins. The man should stick to biology--or biosophy or whatever his field happens to be these days. As we all know his "theology" books are filled with errors of the most profound kind. All one can really do is shake the head and thank God (sorry dude) that he (or Hitch) isn't a drunken guest at your table. What a selfrighteious boob. Of course he thinks it's ok to lie, and it was nice for him to clarify. The "clarification" is priceless. Oh how I miss Stephen Jay Gould.
Posted by: jfp | December 3, 2007 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
TOMH wrote (NOVEMBER 29, 2007 10:32 AM): "I personally am convinced a society run by Dawkins' recommendations on free love would be full of unhappy people and have great great difficulty raising its young. Maybe some country will try it soon, but Mr Dawkins will have to realize that 80% or more of the population of most every country I can thnk of will reject his notion. Of course he will claim it's becasue we're all Deluded :)"
*************
Oh, twaddle. Nowhere did Professor Dawkins suggest any circumstance even remotely like what you describe .
Personally, I think that marriage should be abolished as a 'civil' institution, and be replaced with a 'Domestic Partnership Agreement'... a civil contract which spells out the rights and duties of the domestic partners pertaining to...
* duration of the agreement (5-years, 10 years, perpetual)
* procedure for extending the agreement
* two partners or multiple partners
* commingling of assets
* distribution of assets upon dissolution or expiration of the agreement
* child care responsibilities
* expectations and/or requirements for sexual fidelity (if applicable)
* allowable causes for one party to terminate the agreement
* rights and responsibilities for decision-making in the case of a partner's incapacitation... e.g., 'pulling the plug'.
* rights and remedies
* survivorship
* termination procedures
* responsibilities for continuing support for children post dissolution
* responsibilities for continuing support for partner post dissolution
* etc... you know... the usual legal 'partnership' stuff.
Basically, a standard business agreement cross-bred with a pre-nup on steroids.
Such a partnership agreement would be accessible to any consenting adults, irrespective of sex or sexual orientation or sexual preference... and would provide an avenue to extend things like a partner's employment insurance benefits to the domestic partner. It would provide an avenue for siblings... spinster sisters, for example... to live together in an environment of mutual support.
Such an approach would produce many side-benefits... including the de-fanging of an entire sub-class of societal vultures... divorce lawyers. Disputes would be contractual disputes.
Thereafter, 'marriage' would simply be a mere ceremonial religious 'garnish'... an optional 'icing' which could be applied on top of the Domestic Partnership Agreement 'cake' in order to satisfy the peculiar religious sentiments of a certain segment of society... but it would be no more than that... garnish... and it would have absolutely no civil or legal significance.
Marriage is a 'civil' institution... a 'partnership agreement'... that evolved before civil society evolved... i.e., there were no legal institutions, legal codes or legal infrastructure to enforce the 'contract' when the expectations of one of the partners were not met, or the one of the partners failed to meet his/her obligations. The only 'infrastructure' was religion, and the only 'authority' was an invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairy... as interpreted by a shaman. As civil society evolved, marriage was absorbed into it... complete with its religious trappings. We have outgrown (our society has 'evolved' beyond) the religious trappings... and so it is time to separate the contractual part from the religious part, and to call a contract what it really is... a CONTRACT. Let those who are so inclined get their religious embellishments elsewhere, and leave the rest of us... and our legal system... out of it.
Posted by: DuckPhup | December 3, 2007 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
Since you had addressed me once before in this conversation, and since Interested has brought up the profound psychological issue of "property rights" versus "human beings" with complex psychological make-ups, I feel compelled to chime in and get back on my "soapbox" one more time. You don't have to read this if you don't want to, obviously, but the profound implication in a discussion about Bill Clinton's treatment of Monica, his wife, his daughter, and everyone else around him including the rest of the country is the question of "which ones are property or toys to be used as such, and which are equivalent human beings who ought to be treated with the respect they deserve?"
The idea of "consenting adults" is a bizarre twist of psychology. If anyone is being treated like a toy, it is just as much the fault of the person who considers that "after all, they have agreed and I have a right to enjoy my toy" who has thus reduced the other person to a piece of property, in fact, moreso is the former to blame than the latter. That is what is disgusting about the Bill Clinton situation, particularly acting from a position of relative absolute power. For Dawkins not to see these implications and yet claim to be a scientist, is also bizarre to me.
Interested may have other issues in mind, but their profound insights moved my thinking in the above direction. Have a nice, productive, thought-filled day, all.
Posted by: Parker | December 3, 2007 8:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I had the feeling that Mr. Dawkins had an idea that requires profound thinking and he is either incapable of profound thinking or unwilling to come to grips with the subject.
Posted by: Marion McAnear | December 3, 2007 5:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Professor Dawkins
What a relief that you have not lost your British sense of humour! You have twisted yourself into a nice Bretzel with your logic this time.
More later...
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | December 3, 2007 4:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To paganplace:
If you are right, then I misread Dawkins.
But his example of the British celebrity couple is of a woman claiming a man's body as her property. I read his argument as global--not just, or even primarily, in reference to women or gays as property of men.
I'm not arguing here for a conservative view of marriage. I'm just saying that Dawkins' claims of "desire for fidelity = property claim" and of sexual permissiveness as the resolution are silly. Of course, Dawkins is a smart guy who would say that if he wrote a book about this subject there would be much more nuance. But on this topic, when you start analyzing the nuances, the original claims disappear.
For instance, who is rising above nature? The guy who has sex with different women and is OK with his wife doing the same, or the guy who stays exclusive to his wife for 40 years and would be jealous if he learned that she did not. I can argue it both ways. So could Dawkins. Once you find that you can argue social things like this both ways, neat little equations like the ones Dawkins offered disappear.
Posted by: interested | December 3, 2007 1:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
To Lee:
You are right that I soft-pedaled the particular jealousy and anger that can arise from sexual infidelity. I drew my picture in a one-sided way to contrast with Dawkins. But nowhere did I say that people "ONLY get angry" because agreements are broken. Surely there is such a thing as sexual jealousy.
But my point remains. Anger over infidelity is not merely some primitive jealousy justified by religious sanctimony. That is a reductive view of human sexuality that drains it of its connectedness to other aspects of human living. Without that reduction Dawkins cannot posit: "sexual jealousy/religious sanctimony" vs. "permissive sexual attitude/rise above nature." Human sexuality is too embedded in all sorts cultural values to admit the simple logic that Dawkins imposes upon it. This is especially true in the case of a long-term, exclusive relationship that has produced children, home, business, etc.
Also, nowhere did I say that someone has to be faithful to their spouse. What I said is that sexual fidelity--at least healthy sexual fidelity!--is not based on property rights, but on mutual generosity. To treat someone as property is to oppress them and to treat them as an "it." If I give myself to someone--sexually, emotionally, etc.--I treat them as a "you" and it is their choice to reciprocate. And since we are people and not automobiles, the mutual generosity has to be ongoing. This is very different from property rights. This possibility unhooks the link that Dawkins makes between fidelity and property rights.
I basically agree with the rest of your post.
Posted by: interested | December 3, 2007 12:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment
" interested:
Dawkin’s article is shocking. He states that anger at a “cheating” spouse arises from the idea that one person has property rights over the body of another. He writes with no recognition of the cultural context of sexual behavior. "
Actually, I think he was *precisely* trying to connect the cultural context of 'people,' (let's call a spade a spade: women and gays) ..as 'property ' that makes us make too big a deal of sex, as opposed to other things people lie about to much more grief.
Shocked? I'm not.
What would you like to do now?
Posted by: Paganplace | December 2, 2007 11:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You forget you are talking to a wide range of people. You can joke only if the other person knows you're joking, otherwise they believe you.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Dawkins,
It seems you are best suited for the laboratory studying rats of a different kind than the Clintons.
Posted by: Jon Scott | December 2, 2007 8:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is the precursor to Huxley's admission that his (and others') atheism were easy since they afforded him/them a sexual freedom they so desired.
Posted by: Shades of Huxley | December 2, 2007 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rich R.
Yep,the best we can do for our children is to tell them the truth.
I guess the truth is that as far as we know there are no gods,and to pass on the idea that there are gods is actually lying.
I've raised 5 children,now adult,all of whom I never lied to,and all of whom are nonbelievers.
I'm proud of them.
Posted by: Waldo | December 2, 2007 8:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard, I respect your intelligence but really disagree with what you are proposing. Bill Clinton is a public figure and is not covered in his "lie" like the rest of us. If he lies about very personnal matters it is my experience that he will lie without any constraints on public matters. I respect your opinion on religion but why just bash Mitt. I believe all the republicans have stated their belief in God as have many of the democrats including Hillary and Obama. I am sorry your world can't find a place for God. I am an agronomist and wonder every day at how intricate the design is for the plants I work with. I believe in Darwin's theory but it also can be a work of God. Enjoyed your opinion!
Posted by: Lee Huey | December 2, 2007 7:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Interested:
You claim that people only get angry with spouses or partners who are unfaithful because an "agreement" is betrayed. I'm sorry, but this is not convincing. In many, if not most, so-called "open marriages" people report having the same kinds of jealousy feelings. And in real life, people make and break agreements all the time--and doing so does not usually arouse the anger that sexual infidelity does. It's possible that the breaking of an agreement increases the anger, but it's very dishonest to deny that it's human nature to feel jealous and angry if your partner has sex with someone else--even if there's no agreement not to do so. Focusing on the betrayal, rather than the jealousy, gives the person who is angry the moral high ground.
Secondly, if you argue that someone has to (from a moral point of view) be faithful to their spouse/partner, you're effectively saying that their body is owned by that other person--at least in a very important way. There's just no way around this.
Thirdly, it's true that our culture has certain expectations of marriage. But it's not clear why people have to follow what their culture says. If the culture frowns on divorce, and says that divorce destroys families, does not mean it's wrong for someone to get a divorce if they want one?
It's true that infidelity can cause problems and destroy marriage and relationships. But many other things can as well, such as one spouse being too wrapped up in their work and not giving enough attention to the other. I don't see why infidelity should be particularly marked out as being "immoral" and why those who have done it--like Bill Clinton--should be marked out for opprobrium by others.
Furthermore, many of the comments you made about broken families and such don't seem to apply to some of the people who have been criticized the most for having affairs. Bill and Hillary Clinton seem to have had a more successful marriage than most people, for example, and their daughter seems to have turned out very well.
Posted by: Lee | December 2, 2007 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Amen. You have so eloquently put what I've debated with friends and family alike for years. Humans' self-awareness sets them apart from our furry friends, yet biologically we're hard-wired quite similarly. Most of what we're taught often goes against what's our most basic instinct and nature. Sure, we can become conditioned and trained, much like a lion or elephant put on display at a zoo. But, given the chance, they would surely seek out freedom if given a chance. Often, I argue that if we would just acknowledge the obivous about human nature, we would be better suited to address it. However, it is much easier to deceive ourselves, and others, rather than facing some "undesirable" truths about who we are and why we do what we do.
Kudos
Posted by: Theodore | December 2, 2007 6:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkin’s article is shocking. He states that anger at a “cheating” spouse arises from the idea that one person has property rights over the body of another. He writes with no recognition of the cultural context of sexual behavior.
Marriage and romantic relationships are agreements between two people--possibly tacit and unspoken, but firm agreements nonetheless. Sexually fidelity is the concrete expression of fidelity in many other areas of life that are less concrete (mutuality in household economics, preparing food, rearing children, etc). So when someone “cheats,” they betray a relationship in its many important facets. Hence, anger at the “cheating” partner is not immature sexual jealousy to be superceded by a more mature perspective, it is a response to betrayal of the multi-layered agreement between spouses or partners.
Sexual fidelity should not be understood on the basis of demands (Dawkins’ “property rights”) but on the basis of generosity. The two people generously give their bodies, hearts and minds to each other--both physical nakedness and emotional, intellectual, and economic transparency. Such fidelity, sexual and otherwise, takes commitment and work, but creates value and builds a home or relationship that is worth the effort. The trust that develops in a structure of mutual generosity can indeed be betrayed by infidelity.
In this sense, sexually fidelity is an example of human beings rising above nature--something that Dawkins otherwise praises--to achieve valuable ends. Those ends include emotional support, economic stability, and a trusting, stable environment to raise children. Loss of trust in marriages leads in many cases to economic woes and difficulties in child rearing.
Another culture may choose to structure marriage differently, and there may be reasons to criticize and improve our own understanding. But sexual and family relationships need to be structured in some way, and our culture provides opportunity for sexual behavior to contribute to broader values and goals. Those values and goals are real, and can be violated.
Dawkins’ little quip that it is characteristic of religious minds to care more about private than public morality is silly. This criticism is true of much contemporary religiosity, but it is not true of religious minds in general.
Posted by: interested | December 2, 2007 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill and Hillary are horrific role models for the American public, especially for young children. They surround themselves with criminals and have done everything possible to cheat Americans. Hillary is trying to rig every other candidates campaign. They are both pathetic people.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 5:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill and Hillary are horrific role models for the American public, especially for young children. They surround themselves with criminals and have done everything possible to cheat Americans. Hillary is trying to rig every other candidates campaign. They are both pathetic people.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
How many more anecdotes of hate and intolerance do people need before they will recognize the Big Lie? It's a hard slog when irrational thinking has such a pervasive hold on so many people. Thank you Professor Dawkins for this article. Please keep writing them.
Posted by: Robert | December 2, 2007 5:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton was not impeached for lying about “his private life.” Using your office to find sexual partners – with the women who reject your advances warned not to complain for fear of losing their job – violates several laws. That is why the Clintons lied and will continue to lie about Bill’s sex life.
Maybe the U.S. has too many sexual harassment laws. if so, we should repeal them, not try to look the other way when politicians violate the laws and lie to cover up and delay prosecution for the criminality.
Posted by: WVWisdom | December 2, 2007 5:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
surely the people to admire are those that 'rise above' (no pun intended ;-)) their 'urges' to shag anyone they fancy, and prevent distress to people they love.
dr benway has got it right too when he talks about attachment issues- and love and trust are cornerstones for overcoming those deep psychological problems that prevent happiness.
who are these 'free spirits' (odd choice of word)
that dawkins admires so much, who 'rise above' jealousy?
i want evidence - case histories, interviews, analysis, to see for myself how they manage it.
if religion should be a private matter for adults,
then sexual orientations should certainly be. there are as many different kinds of sexual love as there are people - one person's pleasure can also be another person's disgust.
sure, people can love many different people and things, but its a matter of degree. also very individual - there are some people who love wine more than their partners....
and why lash out at ingrid tarrant - or do you know something we don't?
dawkins is in a postion where he needs to be very careful, and very clear whenever he opens his mouth or writes anything.
i was gobsmacked when i read through this article.
with such radical views on religion i would have hoped for a more inspired and enlightened attitude towards such important, and human, emotional issues. deeply disappointed.
Posted by: poppythinks | December 2, 2007 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
FCSANDERS:
"I suppose you are a good biologist;however on religious matters where are your degrees in Theology?Philosophy? Maybe you should stick to cells,bugs,flowers and plants. Who listens and who in the hell cares what a simple biogist says about anything except biology!!"
I care, Because I have read his books and find that they demonstrate a powerful INTELLIGENCE and feel that we should not allow that "capacity to fust in us unused."
Also, I include human beings in the science of biology, not just "cells, bugs, flowers and plants." The power to observe, accurately report behavior you observe and form reasoned conclusions about such behavior (plus laughter) is what sets us off from other beasts.
Posted by: GMKUHN | December 2, 2007 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Being called sanctimonious by a leftist atheist is like being called green by a frog or black by a pot.
Sex in public is of course a public matter because those so engaged have done so.
It also becomes Public if either of the parties involved chooses to make it so.
Further it becomes a public matter in the case of Rape divorce proceedings and sexual harassment charges.
The blanket statement that sex outside of marriage is never a public concern is legally morally and in most other ways rather retarded.
Posted by: garyd | December 2, 2007 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
the point of an oath is to ask god to be your witness that you are telling the truth. that's why it's sacred. it's not sacred because "one day" we might actually really really need to find the truth. abusing the sacredness of the oath has nothing to do with asking people question about sex during an investigation that had everything to do with sex. abusing the oath is taking one without realizing that you are asking god to be your witness. of course, for those who don't believe in god, an oath really has no sanctity at all.
Posted by: Jack | December 2, 2007 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David:
"Listen, any atheist who tells you love, compassion, joy or any other emotion have any value in their worldview is living the "Atheist Illusion".
I just wonder to which ultra-low level of stupidity, self-righteousness and arrogance a person can fall to utter such ultimate and hateful nonsense.
"Listen, any theist who tells you love, campassion, joy or any other emotion have any value in their world view is living the "Theist Illusion".
Institutionalized Dementia (aka ID).
The idea that a human being like David has the audacity to tell others what value means for THEM gives me the creeps. Next step: Nazi thought police: If you don't believe the same fairy tales as I, I will kill you. You don't have any value. You don't even know what value means. Therefore I will kill you. Frightening. Did it ever occur to you that this is the same mentality as the worst imaginable Islamist fundamentalist doctrine? Apostates must be killed - they have no value.
And I admire Lepi for even trying to argue with such retarded toddlers.
Posted by: Gerry | December 2, 2007 3:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Dawkins,
I too am an atheist although I view the place of modern religions very differently from you, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. But this is not why I am writing to you. I am writing to say that I stopped reading when I got to the first time you mention Tony Blair in your article and then only scanned until I saw the bit about Bush/Blair lies a bit further on, at which point I stopped altogether. I do not choose to read the thoughts of a man expressing such an evidence- and reason-free point of view, emotionally satisfying though it might be. You know perfectly well that neither Bush nor Blair deliberately lied about anything. To claim otherwise is itself a great lie. From your decades of studies you must also know perfectly well that the world is vastly more complicated than a bumper sticker and that simplistic slogans will not help human progress. Shame on you.
Posted by: Geoff Hawkins | December 2, 2007 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Dawkins is correct. Uncritical belief, wether in a god, religious truth, political ideology (aka, standing on principles), can make one blind to reality (Ex: killings in war), logic, and reason. All one needs to take a sanctimonious stand is some ultimate imagined ground.
Posted by: Chenjeri | December 2, 2007 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I happen to believe that children can understand an 'adult' concept like Christianity, and I find it chilling to think that he believes religious instruction of the young to be some kind of abuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The girl at the deli counter told us of a neighbor who told her daughter that santa was satan. She was horrified that someone would tell this to a three year old! I asked her if she thought Santa was real and whether we should teach kids to believe in things we know are not real. She told me yes that this was ok because it helps us to believe in God when we are older. My wife and I got the roast beef and swiss cheese, smiled and wished her a nice day.
So was telling a three year old that santa is satan abusive? Is lying to a child abusive? Is there some age when we are mature enough to make spiritual decisions other than the ones our parents or society make for us? Will santa need a barge when the north pole melts?
All very good questions?
Posted by: Rich Rosenthal | December 2, 2007 1:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd like to comment on your discussion regarding the right to lie about one's sexual life. I believe that no one should be questioned about this part of their lives and if questioned, they have an absolute right to lie. However, I also agree that taking an oath is, for lack of a better definition, a sacred relic, and should be respected in order to assure some order in our courts: therefore, President Clinton should simply have refused to answer any question about his sexual life...period. If he had done that, he would have spared himself, Mrs. Clinton, his daughter and the rest of us a lot of trouble and we, taking it a bit further...if he had refused to answer that question, we might have been spared Bush 43.
Posted by: Maureen | December 2, 2007 1:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Kacoo,
Your criticism falls into the realm of silly. If you disagree with the substance of his comments you may have some valid points. But criticizing his opinion because of where he is from makes you sound like you are unaware that American culture is discussed, debated, criticized, and lauded all over the world, just as you might have your opinions of France or Israel. In fact it is quite likely he is familiar with more diverse aspects of American culture than are many of our more parochial Americans.
Posted by: rafael | December 2, 2007 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Dawkins raises and argues a number of provocative points. One that I have trouble agreeing with him on is the analogue of monogamy with simple-minded and mean-spirited possessiveness. Jealousy is an ugly thing and we can usually concur on condemning it, but loss, abandonment and loneliness are other feelings that estrangement can spawn. Our social structure is built on the commitment of individuals to each other in marriage. Responsibilities and possessions are shared and plans are made in families based upon the presumption of long-term relationships. Would as many young spouses work to finance education for their mate if it was highly likely that their well-educated wife or husband would drift off to spend vacations with strangers (and, perhaps, not return)? Children take 20 years or so to raise. Though some do great jobs and deserve the highest praise, non-parents overall have spotty records on doing this. Yet amorphous or non-existent family units would surely result in more of this taking place. And there is a gorilla in the room as well: sexually transmitted diseases. Mr. Dawkins asks for open heart surgery on our society and I am not sure the patient will survive the procedure.
Posted by: Bob Wassmer | December 2, 2007 12:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The bedrock of civilization is orderly adherence to a legal system. Resting precariously atop that is the "oath". Regardless of the question (Clinton could have refused the questioning and been held in contempt), our President (himself a lawyer no less), has to answer truthfully. Clinton took a wedge out of a leg on which our entire legal system operates.
Posted by: Johnson | December 2, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I am an evolutionary biologist, I agree with much of what Dr. Dawkins writes, but on this one he strayed way beyond the scope of the question and got onto a soapbox on an issue for which not even evolutionary biology has solid theory. He undermines his credibility, which is substantial in many areas, by preaching his personal views about how people should or should not feel about a complex aspect of human behavior and culture.
Posted by: rafael | December 2, 2007 11:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins is not an American, not a registered voter, not a political columnist, and not even a participant in American society.
Yet he remarks on any subject he chooses. I guess his omniscience does make him a God to some.
How assuring it is to know that Prof. Dawkins approves of our American courts and their traditions.
Posted by: Kacoo | December 2, 2007 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I disagree, Prof. Dawkins. He didn't have to lie. All he had to say was that he had been in an adulterous relationship with a staff member, and admitted this to his wife and sought forgiveness. This issue did not have to become the subject of a gran jury investigation that led to a mock impeachment reminiscent of the Salem witch trials. Lying is not acceptable under oath, for truth is the basis and the bedrock of every criminal justice system. And any testimony meant to conceal facts or misrepresent them is unacceptable. True, Mr. Clinton's personal life (or any politician or layman's personal life) is no one else's business, but Mr. Clinton was foolish to lie, and essentially hand fodder to his adversaries who were baying for his blood anyway.
Posted by: Jai | December 2, 2007 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I continue to be amazed about the silence concerning the perverted Kennedy family. After all, did they not serve as sexual mentors for "Billy Boy"?????
Hmmm, murder, womanslaugther, adultery, and more adultery!!! Then there is their favorite "Reverend" Jesse J.
Well at least "Billy Boy" did not DUI with Monica !!!
And "Teddy Boy" continues to get re-elected. So much for "proper conduct" being an issue in Massachusetts politics!!!!!
Maybe electing Mitt Romney as Massachusetts governor was to make up for all the "approved" Kennedy sins??
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 2, 2007 11:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Please tell me this was written to provoke emotional responses and generate debate. It is the only reason I can think of an intelligent man would justify lying and cheating. Surely no one could actually debate that position from conviction.
You should write country songs.
Posted by: Geno | December 2, 2007 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Look, Dawikins, you or sort of good when you stick to the facts you know, about evolution. But in terms of lying and public life, and lying under oath, and red wine and white, I'm afraid you are as benighted as the average person. In the future, concentrate on the field of knowledge you know, and don't let the fact that you are a respected and knowledgeable evolutionist go to your head to imagine that you are also an expert on morality -- unless you want experts on this matter (morality) writing half-baked essays on evulution, which require all these amendments like you had to do. And what about that book on the evolution of sexuaolity you promised us in "Climbing Mount Improbable" are you going to write it? I am awaiting it, and will buy it, as soon as it is on the market!
Posted by: frank burns | December 2, 2007 11:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Boy, what a smug, condensending, elitist article, "extolling your grand words of wisdom" to us more common folks. Thank You!
In your response, instead of conceding some of the points you made in your original article, like all Liberals, you get pissed at people when they don't agree with you. You talk down instead of to them, you make it sound like everyone who has a different point of view is too dumb to understand your grand thesis.
I'm not some bible thumper, but I do recognize the importance of family, and that, morality, to a degree is critical to maintaining societal stability. Look at parts of our society with strong family units as opposed to those who don't, and ask your self which is more thriving/successfull.
Posted by: Erik | December 2, 2007 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You make a very compelling argument that for the most part human sexuality is a private matter and should not be subjected to public scrutiny. I also believe this is true.
Where we differ is over the issue of lying about it. You seem to brush this off with, " Telling a lie is often the only way to convey an effective "No comment." I'm sorry but this response is as intellectually dishonest as it is lazy.
President Clinton, who I admire very much, faced several choices in how to deal with the Lewinsky/Jones scandals and he made some very poor choices. True, he wouldn't be the first person to lie about sex and I'm sure he won't be the last. That doesn't make his answers any better. The fact that he chose to lie instead of taking the moral high ground and affirmatively state his personal life was only for tabloid journalists to speculate about and he would not engage in any discussion that wasn't relevant to his offce was a choice he made. Small petty minds are always going to think the worst no matter what. A person gains nothing by lying when lying isn't absolutely necessary. Ask Scooter Libby if he had it to do all over again would he have lied to Fitzgerald when in the end it proved his telling the truth originally to Fitzgerald would have probably spared him prosecution and conviction.
Just because the press wants to know something is absolutely no reason anyone has to tell them anything. It is true "no comment" is a non answer and should only be used sparingly. However, when something should be off limits for public discussion then we need to state so. Clinton failed to state his marriage and/or personal life was not for public discourse and was a private matter. When the press responded he was president and everything he did or said was of public concern simply because he was president he would have had every right to reject that comment. Simply because someone is either a celebrity, politican or notorious doesn't give the public the right to know what goes on in their bedroom.
I was and still am a great admirer of Bill Clinton. His intelligence, hard work, engaging personality and his centrist goverance style I found refreshing and very appealing. However, he will always have the tarnished reputation of lying and his truthfulness will always be in question over an issue that he should have taken off the table for public discussion. Even if it turned out the way it did he wouldn't have been remembered as a person who lied about it. This really was a classic case of even very intelligent people can do stupid things.
Posted by: BobL-VA | December 2, 2007 10:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think Mr. Dawkins should have left well enough alone his apologetic post script just muddied the water. The fact that Clinton was impeached for lying about a sexual encounter with a consulting adult, and Bush and his operatives have escaped even censure for misleading us into a disastrous war, should provid fodder for writers for the next 50 years . . .
Posted by: Rudy Dalpra | December 2, 2007 10:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment
President Bill Clinton, in my opinion, lost a very valuable opportunity to help the nation learn something very important. Namely, that the inquisitors who were bent upon "getting him" at any cost were doing the nation's political well-being very serious harm and that their inquisition was in and of itself not only a disgrace but also something which was in practical terms far, far worse than the allegations against---which, I remind readers, were, _at first_, _only_ the charge that he'd had a promiscuous relationship with a White House aide. Only later, well after the matter was turned into a cause célèbre, did Clinton state falsely that he'd not had a promiscuous relationship with an intern.
And, lest we forget, the nation _still_ hasn't learned much of anything useful from this sad episode; your article's appearance attests to that.
Some may object that Clinton owed no particular duty to place himself in further jeopardy by making the scandal an occasion to teach the American public something important about political and moral priorities and their proper places in an elected official's life; that view holds that Clinton had a right to protect himself and his hold on office against a disgraceful campaign to unseat him by any available means and, thus, his dishonesty was something owed to the nation above a truthful admission.
I disagree. And the reason is simple. Clinton sought his office and the responsibilities that came with it. Once in it, there is a duty to do what is best for the nation's political well-being first, before one's own personal need to avoid embarrassment.
Given his personal conduct prior to reaching the White House, it's very difficult to conceive of how Mr. Clinton as president could have come to such a point and still have missed understanding that about holding public office. I'd have thought that Mrs. Clinton would've recognized the same, from her position. Her husband's proclivities were hardly unknown to her.
Posted by: proximity1 | December 2, 2007 10:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment
One caveat about public officials' private lives being off limits. What if there is something they can be blackmailed for? Say by a foreign government. Do we want public policy to be affected by leaders' needs to keep their skeletons in the closet?
Posted by: Gregory F. Bachelis | December 2, 2007 9:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What if? The definiton of love is; allowing anothers will to be your's. Because you have a free will and you can give it away. And there was no other meaning of love.
What if love could take your choice away?
Posted by: Beaver | December 2, 2007 9:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it a bit ironic that I watched Sally several times on TV commentating during the "torture Clinton" era, and now she's the self-defined czar of "spirituality."
Posted by: Tom | December 2, 2007 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton having extra marital affairs and his repeated lying about it reveal a serious character defect. And this isn't a minor thing either. Several of the women who have come forward allege that he raped them (or tried to). Of course, Clinton and his defenders say this is a private affair. Private? Forcing yourslef on a woman is a private thing? Sure, let me try that whenever I decide to do a "private thing" with a pretty lady I see. Will you pay my bail?
Clinton and defenders like the author usually ignore or destroy those women who have the courage to come forward. Even worse, women's groups try to tear them down, calling them "trailer trash" (what would it matter even if that were true since Clinton apparently likes them) and refuse to help them. Watching these Clinton apologists defend him is simply sickening...
Posted by: Dennis | December 2, 2007 9:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What a dumb statement that "Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word 'sin' to private sexual behavior." So if the man lies to his wife, betrays his relationship to her, and furhter has sex an intern beneath him, it's self-righteous to call that SIN? Only if you're of the camp of don't ever tell me anything I do is wrong.
Posted by: D Mosely | December 2, 2007 9:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
With all due respect to the author's academic achievement, I reject his attacks, and wish I could sprout wings to stay above all that has been slung.
Posted by: Richard J. Papp | December 2, 2007 8:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
At the Franfurt Book Fair in October, Mr. Dawkins referred to an "American" woman (an excerpt from one of his books I believe), stating she wrote to him claimng that although she was SEXUALLY ABUSED as a child (by a member of the clergy?) Far more upsetting to her, in fact apparently the incident left her in mental anguish and damaged her psyche, were the comments made about heaven and hell after the death of a loved one. I didn't read the book, but I know what I heard Mr. Dawkins say and I was stunned. How could mere words from just another human being BEGIN to compare to the unthinkable, personal physical assault and abuse that this CRIME is?
So, I now find myself disagreeing with Mr. Dawkins again.
Bill Clinton was simply wrong in his conduct. It can't be pooh-poohed away under any circumstances and, an argument could be made that Mrs. Clinton role was that of an enabler. Possibly our society forced her to become an enabler, true, but I think she could have maintained her integrity, divorced Bill Clinton and STILL have run for the presidency.. Now, that's real Women's Liberation and in any event, I'm sure she shall be an excelllent president.
Posted by: Anonymous | December 2, 2007 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sex is stupid like war.
Posted by: katman | December 2, 2007 7:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Brilliantly written, and the postscript as well. Bravo for tackling this difficult subject!
Posted by: Martin Nagle | December 2, 2007 3:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Good morning, Washington Post readers. If you've read Dawkins' aimless diatribes, you may enjoy many of the comments above (early on) that questioned his judgement about Clinton's impeachment and why the American public would be concerned about having a president who lied to a grand jury. You may also wonder about his comments about Mitt Romney.
As a Mormon who has studied our doctrines fairly rigorously, I want to clarify a couple of unclear statements by Dawkins. One is about the Second Coming of Christ. That would be expected to occur sometime (perhaps) between 2050 and 2100 AD, so Mitt won't be thinking about that at all--why would he? (Other than realizing that we need coherent energy policy, education policy, social security and welfare policy, and a strong national defense because we're on our own to figure out how to continue to preserve this great nation. Nobody's going to come in and do it for us--nor would the Savior if He were to come earlier.)
The statement about the Garden of Eden puzzled me coming from Dawkins. Why would such a man care where the Garden of Eden was? Personally, I think it covered much of the then existent single-continent earth. But so what? The Garden of Eden time frame could have been thousands of years, but so what?
As to reasonable people believing the Book of Mormon, I challenge Dawkins or anyone else to go ahead and write such a book, being so smart and so educated. I'll believe such a thing can be done when I see it. But it had better have the internal consistency, complex story lines and characters, and vibrant authenticity that the Book of Mormon has, or the writer will not have proven anything other than that it can't be done.
As to the blacks, this is a red herring since the Book of Mormon doesn't denigrate the blacks or other racial groups at all, but Obama gets the black vote (either as the candidate or the running mate) so it becomes a moot point.
But do go back to the top and read the comments by even a lot of atheists who question Dawkins' judgement on this particular piece of journalism.
Have a good day, all. Aren't we glad for the freedoms we enjoy?
Posted by: Parker | December 2, 2007 2:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Terra Gazelle,
I don't know of any Mormon beliefs that could affect the nation negatively, unless you're talking about some conservative positions. I personally don't recognize my faith as it is at times described by ex-Mormons. It is strange a phenomenon, but hey, what can you do?
Also, thanks for not gossiping, it is mighty charitable of you. Perhaps it would be helpful for you to know that the Senate majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid, is a fully believing, practicing Mormon. He has the trust of his colleagues and pretty much follows the party line. This is what I would expect most LDS politicians to do.
Best to you,
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 1, 2007 10:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This conversation about Mormonism is a bit strange in it's timeing.
About two months ago two young men came to my door...two x Mormons from Missouri. The one had come to visit my group's High Priest...
After two days they decided to move here.
The older one has been studying Paganism, his brother came with him to save him from the ax murdering flakes, he did not know what to expect and was afraid for his brother. He is now also taking classes and had decided to dedicate.
They have been telling me about Mormonism. They left it some time ago...they love coffee, my raseberry iced tea...a glass of wine with dinner and the Goddess. They have been telling me some odd things about that religion. It would not be right for me to gossip about what they told me. Leave it that Yes...I would want to know if the president held some of those beliefs. They can affect the nation negatively.
We know what this administration has done because of belief. Clinton's BJ did not affect me at all...except the 60 million tax dollars to investigate and all they discovered was consentual.
Also HOW DARE Star force Clinton to lie or humiliate his wife and daughter in public. And Star made it very public. He could have asked that question in private and deal with it with the respect any one should get. But No, it was all out. Clinton was wrong..but Star was/is garbage, along with Tripp, Goldburg, and all the money backers..along with the Hypocrites of the republican party that bushed it while carrying on their own affaires.
terra
Posted by: Terra Gazelle | December 1, 2007 9:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David,
If I understand you correctly, one cannot be an athiest and feel emotions that have value? My dog shows love every time I walk in the door, and fear if I scold her, and anger if another dog comes on the property, yet she is unlikely to be a theist. If you cannot accept that her emotions have a material basis (whether or not we can explain them currently), or that they contribute to her ability to function, then do you propose that the holy spirit is running through her too? Which holy spirit, exactly--what proof can you offer that yours is the source? And what mechanism do you propose as the method of delivery of each emotion I feel? Some kind of supernatural squirt?
Posted by: rafael | December 1, 2007 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
If I follow your trains of thought (not sure I do), then I need to clarify that I am not insistent that anyone believe me or the Book of Mormon, the Bible, or whomever. There is a realm of spiritual reality and knowledge that is just as real to those who have experienced it as yur hand in front of your face, but that realm of knowledge pre-supposes that there are truths in the universe that are worth knowing that can't be discovered by seeing. Such truths can be discovered all over the place, and are found in great literature, the inspiration behind some movies, inspiration dealing with healthy lifestyles, and the motivations people have to act in loving ways outside of their own narrow scope of needs.
The commandments and the beatitudes aren't some authoritarian club with which to threaten people, but a set of rules to guide action that will lead to happiness (if lived wihout feeling threatened by them) and also to new knowledge. Growth in knowledge is what this life is all about, for every one of us. Some choose frivolous or aimless methods to do so, but they're learning nonetheless. Eveyone can choose their own path toward knowledge of truths, fine by me, and some will have unique perspectives that can benefit all of us. We can learn from each other. All the best to you.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 5:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker, I’m bowing out here. I understand these are your Mormon beliefs and assume that you compartmentalize them when dealing in everyday, non-religious life. I respect your right to have these beliefs, as long as they don’t affect my life, but I don’t respect the beliefs themselves (as I’ve said elsewhere) and would be doing both of us a disservice to imply otherwise.
Peace to you.
Posted by: E favorite | December 1, 2007 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's put it this way.
I don't expect of the Gods some kind of written inviolable commandments, and then wail, 'O, ye of little faith' when *authority claimed in Their names over others via that book* is held up to scrutiny, particularly if that book tries to make factual assertions that contradict the world and how things work in it.
That's not what a book is *for.*
You can have your own book, make it an object of devotion of it, claim it's special, ...heck, if I were as strong and quick as I used to be, I'd probably run into a burning synagogue to rescue some Jewish scrolls I know they value, even if I don't believe a word and it'd probably have to be purified after being touched by Pagan and female hands or something... cause it's important to them.
...The fact is, just cause you value the book doesn't mean it has authority over reality, though.
Which is an extraordinary claim made by many about a number of books.
Posted by: Paganplace | December 1, 2007 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Faith's not at issue in that, Parker.
Acting as if absence of proof is in fact proof, on the other hand, that's not *faith.*
That's *insistence.*
Posted by: Paganplace | December 1, 2007 4:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace,
You would have to do a great deal of reading to understand my response to your note. If God wanted to prove anything, such a Being obviously could, unless it would defy the very set of truths that such a Being lives by in order to be God. I believe profoundly that God enables the uninhibited, uninfluenced (by natural undisputable evidence) working agency--choice--of His spirit children, whether here or in pre-mortal life. So, He would not do as you suggest--absolutely not. Have a good day.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 3:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Let's put it this way, Parker: in the words of Carl Sagan, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.'
I've seen probably far more than the average person's share of extraordinary things and happenings, but extraordinary proof? Not available or relevant, except maybe to me or those involved. Writing these things down, even for a long time, would not make it 'proof' any more than it'd have been at the start.
I don't base authoritarian claims on these things, myself. And, frankly, no such claim to authority or antiquity constitutes proof of an authoritarian system, particularly not in detail.
Posted by: Paganplace | December 1, 2007 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
Since your comment about "heavenly writing of tablets" brings up an area I want not to be misunderstood, I'll explain further about the Book of Mormon and Moroni. Let's suppose that for whatever reason, you spend a good part of your life reading the history and commentaries of a number of historical figures within your cultural background, and you receive an assignment to condense (sort of like Readers Digest condensed books) the writing into a more manageable piece of writing for your posterity and others to enjoy and learn from. You write on a preservable material that will last a long time without decaying. You have a son who receives the same assignment you had as you know you're about to die. Would you not consider that your "record" had a specialness about it, and that if you had anything to do with it, you would like it not to get into the wrong hands? Would you not be grateful that you had a son who felt the same way you did? I'm not asking you to believe this, but only to consider it being within the realm of plausibility.
A likely response that has often been given is "How convenient to have the physical evidence taken away." But several men, many of whom later discredited Joseph Smith, never discredited their attestation that they saw and handled metallic pages of a record, and heard an angellic voice tell what the record was about. Those men were real people who lived in New York. When they later discredited Joseph Smith, why wouldn't they say they had been deluded or had made up the story about the metallic "plates"?
The book itself has so many story lines, so many word usage patterns that show different authorship, and fervent authenticity of its writers, that to say it was all made up by a farm lad and his friends is more mind-boggling than to say that a portion of the Red Sea could be parted by a tornado, as far as I'm concerned. Peace to all.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 2:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Doesn't really seem like the right person to answer that question...
Posted by: Michael W. | December 1, 2007 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hi, Parker - I can't resist another comment.
I'm not "relabeling" anything as supernatural. Events such as virgin birth, resurrection, ascension, parting of seas, heavenly writing of tablets which then disappear, etc, are supernatural and require faith. They can not be proven by evidence.
Posted by: E favorite | December 1, 2007 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
Thanks. As people try and communicate with each other, I think it helps to re-state what one person believes another person has conveyed, even if it's not a direct quote. Even if that means they're "putting words" in someone else's mouth, I still think it leads to better understanding than just going off thinking they understood the first time. Be that as it may, the words "smarmy commentary" I thought carried a negative connotation that conveyed such communication was--uh oh, I'd be putting words in your mouth--"smarmy". But why stumble over semantics rather than ponder substance?
I'll go away now, with the rejoinder that the Teacher has left the room, and learning to live by faith was a part of the test, so re-labeling it as "supernatural" may allow a person to not think more deeply about the subject, but it may also mean they will miss out on understanding this life in a much more profound way. Again, peace to you.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
David:
**What is love in the context of an atheist worldview? A squirting gland? A chemical reaction "designed", not sure how atheists can use that term, to ensure the propagation of the species?
Listen, any atheist who tells you love, campassion, joy or any other emotion have any value in their worldview is living the "Atheist Illusion"**
Actually, is a biological, hormonal component to romantic love. There are physical changes in brain and endocrine chemistry when people are in the presence of their beloved.
Animals have been observed exhibiting behavior which could be described as compasionate - adoption of orphans by lactating females, sometiems even orphans of other species, for example. And I would certainly describe the reaction of our dog when he sees my daughter come through the door as joyful.
Surely you're not suggesting that the capacity for emotion requires the intervention of a supernatural being?
Posted by: lepidopteryx | December 1, 2007 1:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker - I just read your follow-up comment.
Peace to you, as well.
Posted by: E favorite | December 1, 2007 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker – Thanks for getting back to me and I appreciate that you seem to have carefully considered some of my remarks.
Regarding needing to “thoroughly research” primary Mormon material before commenting on the location of the Garden of Eden – I strongly disagree. All that’s needed is evidence of the Garden in Missouri (or Mesopotamia, for that matter – it’s lacking in both places). Just as thorough research of mathematical theory isn’t needed to deduce that 2+2 does not equal 5, or thorough study of toy production and delivery is not needed to suspect the absence of Santa Claus.
Please note – I didn’t say that I never come across as smug, in fact, I admitted that I felt smug in my last comments.
I also have no agenda to forward, contrary to what your conjecture, about Dawkins explaining “all that” about the earth happening by chance. And I (smugly) conjecture that you’re mischaracterizing me in a perhaps unconscious desire to discredit my actual comments.
Regarding the logic of Mormonism – I don’t think there are logical explanations for any supernaturally-based religion. In fact, all such religions, including Mormonism, rely greatly on faith, touting its virtues. When logic fails, faith perseveres. While I haven’t made a study of Mormonism (the way I have of earlier Christianity), I know its basics - relying on revelation and devising a intricate view of life after death. This is not logic.
Parker, I have no doubt that you can think and act logically in all areas of your life outside of religion. I certainly did when I was a believer.
Finally, please don’t worry about not measuring up to my “acceptable standard of communication for this blog.” I’ll be happy if you don’t put words in my mouth (or anyone else’s) and present evidence when making claims on non-supernatural matters.
Posted by: E favorite | December 1, 2007 12:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard,
You are my hero!
Posted by: Daniel | December 1, 2007 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard,
You are my hero!
Posted by: Daniel | December 1, 2007 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker,
Joe Smith's "visions" of the "pwtfft" aka Moroni is sufficient evidence to put Mormonism/Romney on the pile of great con jobs. Mohammed was, however, a bit more successful in pulling off his con job with his "visions" of Gabriel. And then you have the Christian/Giuliani/Huckabee visions of Gabriel, Michael (the AA) and singing angelic choirs, the triple cons!!!! And of course, let us not forget our Jewish friends and their "pwtfft"s of Death and occasional "flying" visitors.
Hmmm, there should be a book in all of this: How about "Angelic Cons and Their Aftermaths"???
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | December 1, 2007 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Paganplace
Not questioning the veracity of what you say, but was hoping for a smoking gun quote in good American ink. Those European dailies including the BBC trend toward tabloid sensationalism in much of their reporting, it sells.
As a biologist Mr. Dawkins knows theory is simply opinion until it is proven. The Prof. also demands proof of existence in his Contra God Crusade.
So as Divinity less proof is nothing more than fluffy white candy to him, likewise his remarks on an American President minus solid evidence are not acceptable here.
Posted by: 4th watch | December 1, 2007 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
By the way, I had supposed that Dawkins considered himself being challenged by inference in the Otterson response to the Hitchens quote of a few weeks back, which is why I said Dawkins might be responding in kind. I'd love to have an on-line dialogue directly with either of them, and challenge some of their assumptions. Again, have a nice day--I really mean that. (I know I sometimes come across as sarcastic. "A Modest Proposal" is one of the pieces of literature that I have really enjoyed, so I guess Swift's approach has rubbed off on me.) Peace to you.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
After a little more thought, I would like call your attention to this statement once again:
"But going beyond direct influences on policies, would you wish to be governed by a man who has such a cock-eyed view of reality that he thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, even if he keeps that cock-eyed view private?"
In the past when you have decried theist discrimination against atheists for their beliefs I have agreed with you. I am disappointed to see you implicitly advocating discrimination against Mormons for their beliefs. Is it not true that a majority of Americans also see atheism as a “cockeyed view of reality“? Do you think that assessment of an atheist perspective should justify deeming a person incompetent for a position of leadership? You are not talking about a Christian majority when you address Mormons, you are talking about a historically persecuted minority that are almost as likely to be discriminated against by the Christian majority as atheists.
Best,
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | December 1, 2007 11:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite,
Good morning. I see that you were offended--sorry. I don't fear atheism at all, nor do I think it is "growing" although it obviously grew when you joined up. How does one get the attention of an atheist so that they begin thinking outside of their pre-conceived conclusions? I have a hard time with that, and I can see why you would think it puts me in a mode of smugness.
My point was that a person who is going to attack Mormonism on the grounds of logic and the appearance of having researched the topic, ought to have done a thorough job of researching, including reading the primary material (the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price).
E Favorite, I appreciate reading many of your comments as they try to bridge the communication between atheists and believers, but for you to think that I come across as smug and you never do, is beyond me. I said this life is a test, and I enjoy observing how people deal with it--does that make me smug? Why? To live is to observe life around you. You seem to be an observer of people. You've drawn some conclusions that I don't share, but I'm OK with living and let live.
I think the logic that says this earth happened by chance is lacking mathematically, under the logic of probability. You'll say Dawkins has explained all that. I say according to him, there must be millions of such inhabited earths such as ours, and I say "that's right." You think you evolved, but I think you have an inner spirit that is a sentient entity, that existed before this life.
What you don't know about Mormonism is that it answers logically every one of the arguments I read coming from atheists against Christianity. It answers the "problem of evil". It says God will be much more generous and benevolent than the standard Christian view in how we all are judged in the final judgement. Every good thing a person has done will add to the luster of their "reward"--which will really just be a continuation of the learning process that this life is all about, only then we'll no longer "see through a glass darkly".
Again, sorry to have not measured up to your standard of "acceptable" communication on this blog. I respect you and your right to say what you think. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The correction makes more sense. Seems our friend came down from whatever he had been smoking.
Posted by: Thorn | December 1, 2007 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What is love in the context of an atheist worldview? A squirting gland? A chemical reaction "designed", not sure how atheists can use that term, to ensure the propagation of the species?
Listen, any atheist who tells you love, campassion, joy or any other emotion have any value in their worldview is living the "Atheist Illusion"
Posted by: David | December 1, 2007 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Are there really that many people who care that much about this religion and faith stuff?
Posted by: ander | December 1, 2007 10:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Parker - your use of the terms “puzzling,” "marvel" and “fascinating” in describing your reaction to Dawkins’ and other atheists’ comments seems disingenuous to me. It seems to be dripping with sarcasm --- and delight that Dawkins’ arguments are so lacking in substance. Still, you don’t provide the substance yourself. Instead you attempt to analyze his motives – getting even with a critic – but you provide no details or evidence for that either.
You present yourself as the grateful “observer” of all this interesting activity. I picture you above it all, smugly chortling at the childish bustle below.
Tell me, have I characterized you correctly? By the way, I acknowledge that I’m feeling smug and clever in my analysis of your post. I do enjoy seeing and commenting on what I consider demonstration of the fear some people have about the growing influence of atheism. Still, my ultimate goal in writing this is to discourage this kind of smarmy commentary. I don’t think it enhances the dialogue. It just makes people who make this kind of comment appear scared and desperate.
That goes for you too, Kacoo, questioning why “a royal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of England” should comment on life in America. Does that go for every Brit who ever lived? Every person from anywhere besides the US? Would it also apply to any American who ever commented on life in other countries? Or are you just looking for an excuse to silence people who threaten your beliefs?
Posted by: E favorite | December 1, 2007 8:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why is Richard Dawkins, a royal subject of Her Majesty the Queen of England, commenting upon life in America?
Richard Dawkins hates religion. Okay, that is his right as an -- wait a minute -- Dawkins is not an American. Dawkins is British and as such he is a subject of the Crown and its state-established church, the Anglican Church of England.
Maybe Dawkins should try reforming his own country on freedom of religion before exporting his hate abroad.
Posted by: Kacoo | December 1, 2007 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sex outside of marriage, whether a one off or an attraction to another person, is fundamentally a breach of trust but even so I believe it is certainly forgivable. However this is a whole different story to a public figure lying to the people they serve. A person in a public office has a duty to the public they serve and that means what they do or have done in their private life may be of relevance. Should a serial killer proclaim his passion for killing is a matter of his private life and be justified in lying about it if brought to task? I don’t think so. President Clinton's case was not serious and it has not made me dislike him. But I certainly agree with you that public morality such as the Blair/Bush/and let's not forgeth Little Johnny Howard lies about Iraq’s weapons, particularly when they appear to possibly be tied to the desire to manufacture consent for war for whatever oil/ commercial interests, is of much greater concern.
Now, here’s a very difficult case! How about scientists lying about the evidence that exists, which points to a non-physical reality? And particularly as that evidence becomes crucial to people’s health and life? What evidence and how is it covered over? Let us first say that you say in your book the God Delusion that prayer experiments were done faithful to science and that meant using double blinds which you called “a standard”. Double blinds are used in drug trials for the precise reason that there the participants need to be blinded, which means their insightful perception, which exists where there is relationship between two parties, is disabled by distancing the two parties –hence the second blind. The use of double blinds in NOT a standard to be used in all experiments regardless. Unlike a drug trial, where the efficacy of a drug can only be tested where the placebo effect is hopefully disabled, prayer on the other hand is a totally different kettle of fish. Prayer can only be effective where there IS insightful perception because the main effect of prayer is to strengthen the person’s belief in healing. The evidence of insightful perception is clear and at the heart of precognition experiments. In these it is claimed the person is predicting the future. On what grounds? They certain are able to insightfully perceive what is about to be displayed on a computer screen. And we see this particularly if the image is going to be distressful because we can identify their reaction more readily than if the image is not going to be distressful, owing the person physiological reaction. This evidence however does not show any ability to predict the future. The reality is that the computer makes a choice before it is to be displayed on the screen. At that point the person becomes insightful of what is chosen and about to be seen. The only way that we can be insightful of what a computer has chosen (or indeed of the yet unexpressed but mentally upheld ill intents of others) is if the “mind” is non-physical in nature AND a common platform. Indeed this is evidence that would help solve the quantum measurement problem in physics with a simple, satisfying and energetically economical solution. A non-physical realm would of course be dimensionless and would underlie all material reality, and there again we would have an explanation for yet another observed and quizzical phenomenon in physics and that is that of non-locality. Should we refrain from prying into a scientists private “religious views”, just as we should refrain from prying into their private sexual behavior? And given that their atheism may well be a motive for misrepresenting science?
When we see the implications of insightful perception in the arena of health then we see scientists doing more harm than the atom bombs, chemical and biological warfare and the chemicals that have contributed to global warming that scientists have helped produce. You are keen to blame religions and religious founders and God for wars that humans who are essentially malicious help produce, then you have to also carry the burden of responsibility for what scientists help produce. What are the effects on disease? Huge! First of all insightfulness is deemed to be a symptom of mental illness and on that conjecture millions are drugged and their plight is for life once they are marked with the indelible ink of psychiatrists. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. Insightful perception plays a significant role in cancer, diabetes, heart disease and stokes and that can be scientifically proved! Not by putting double blinds in place to sabotage the research but by doing science faithfully and that is by using a control to verify the effect. If you do want to know more please visit my website at http://www.annavictoria.net and if you have difficulties reaching it or if you are redirected away from that site as I have been told sometimes happens then please notify me at health@annavictoria.net and I will email the files to you.
And while you criticize the wife of the well-known television personality, Chris Tarrant, who hired a private detective, what do you say for the growing number of controlling, manipulative individuals who use underhanded means that far outweigh any lowliness of employing of a detective. As you will read on my website the means that are used not only cripple their spouse’s health (and while women are by far the greater victims there are men too victimized in this same way) but also seriously affect the children. We are facing a social plague of mammoth proportions and yet this goes on because the science is misrepresented. Are you going to justify this on the grounds of natural selection or will you look more faithfully at how the science is done? After all you do have a responsibility to the public, given the position you hold, that of Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford since 1995. As you say “truth where fire is concerned is sacred. Don’t abuse it, because one day there really will be a fire.” Indeed in our times the fire is raging and will soon be out of control if people like yourself does nothing. You are entitled to you religious or irreligious views. But as a scientist you are obligated to do science faithfully. So once again as you say “don’t abuse the sacredness of the oath” in this case by misrepresenting science owing to private matters which tempt them – with some justification -- to lie? “One day, you may need to ask a genuinely important question, where you really do need to get at the truth. Then you will regret having abused the sacredness of the oath.” 100% of the population are affected by diseases that are really the result of serious criminal action, by adversely taking advantage of a person’s insightfulness. You will be affected too and your life will be cut short too some day. Isn’t it worth it, even for your own life’s sake, to act now to help expose the truth, even if you are not interested in healing for the millions upon millions the world over?
Annavictoria.
Posted by: Anna Victoria | December 1, 2007 1:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard Dawkins chides Mormons for believing that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. He obviously knows little about religion. The fact that 19th Century Mormons had a view that the Garden of Eden was "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions. For example, there is a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. Ez. 28:13 says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters -- Jerusalem -- it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters. Moreover the Mormon church's official website points out that it is a mistake to take "an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. The precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."
Posted by: Ken Kyle | December 1, 2007 1:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard Dawkins chides Mormons for believing that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. He obviously knows little about religion. The fact that 19th Century Mormons had a view that the Garden of Eden was "local" to them has its parallels in other religious traditions. For example, there is a Jewish tradition that the Garden of Eden was in Jerusalem. There is a spring of water there known as the Gihon, one of the unidentified rivers of Paradise. Ez. 28:13 says “You were in Eden, the garden of God,” and then parallels that in the next verse with “you were on the holy mountain of God,” generally understood as the temple mount. There is important symbolism here. If a Jewish tradition can assign the location of the Garden to its traditional headquarters -- Jerusalem -- it is not surprising to have a Mormon tradition assigning the location of the Garden to Jackson County, Missouri, which for a time was its church headquarters. Moreover the Mormon church's official website points out that it is a mistake to take "an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. The precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice."
Posted by: Ken Kyle | December 1, 2007 1:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it puzzling in reading many atheistic comments that while I would expect thorough, deep reasoning to back up supposed research and its conclusions, I don't get the sense that such research has been thorough or deep, ala Dawkins statements about Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Why broach a subject where one's research is aimlessly shallow? (Perhaps to try and get even with the writer of an earlier post in OnFaith, I suppose, critical of Dawkins' logic.)
I marvel at the incredible testing process this life is, to see what people are made of and what they are attracted to, what motivates them, all in a sort of "double-blind test" way. It is fascinating to observe at so many levels. It has been fascinating to observe here in this OnFaith blog time and again. Thanks for the interesting dialogue.
Posted by: Parker | December 1, 2007 1:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard:
Sorry about your last name--I forgot that it's "Dawkins" not "Hawkins."
Posted by: Lee | November 30, 2007 11:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard Hawkins:
You have a right to write whatever you want, but I frankly think the qualifier you wrote to this article after the initial wave of letters was cowardly and a cop-out. In my view, your initial implication was right: There was nothing wrong with Clinton lying under oath about Monica Lewinsky--since the issue was nobody's business anyway. When you voice an opinion, you should stick by it even if it provokes anger and disapproval.
Posted by: Lee | November 30, 2007 11:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Steven Mading:
"And my problem with what Dawkins said is that he does not make the distinction between infidelity occurring in open relationships versus infidelity occurring in relationships where the parters promised monogamy to each other. His article acts like they're the same thing, ethically speaking. They are NOT the same."
So let me get this straight. Are you saying any promise has to be kept, regardless of the nature of the promise? If a son promises his father that he'll enter the family business and work in it for the rest of his life, does he have to keep this promise, even if he hates the business?
You have made no convincing argument why promise breaking is necessary unethical. Whether it's ethical or not depends on the nature of the promise. So you can't simply condemn extramarital affairs if they involve "breaking a promise."
And promising to be monogamous is not the same as promising to be at work on a particular day, like you suggested. The first is a promise to live the most personal part of your life a certain (restricted) way for the foreseeable future. The second is nothing of the sort. You don't see a difference between the two? Come on.
Posted by: Lee | November 30, 2007 11:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Next time, please don't resort to name-calling. Say something substantive to show you're thinking about what you don't like about him, instead of just showing your distaste for the man."
This is, I believe, is a good truism.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Reed | November 30, 2007 10:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Next time, please don't resort to name-calling. Say something substantive to show you're thinking about what you don't like about him, instead of just showing your distaste for the man."
This is, I believe, a good truism.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Reed | November 30, 2007 10:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Next time, please don't resort to name-calling. Say something substantive to show you're thinking about what you don't like about him, instead of just showing your distaste for the man."
This is, I believe, a good truism.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Reed | November 30, 2007 10:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's also important to note that the above noted racist beliefs are not currently taught or affirmed by the church.
Now moving on...
You say:
“But going beyond direct influences on policies, would you wish to be governed by a man who has such a cock-eyed view of reality that he thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri, even if he keeps that cock-eyed view private?”
Why go beyond a belief’s influence on policies? I don’t quite understand your logic here. Do you really think a belief in a local Garden of Eden is more irrational than the beliefs of many competent presidents who have gone before us? I personally am not sure if I believe in the Garden of Eden in the first place, but if I did, I do not see how it is more rational to believe it existed in Mesopotamia, like many of the other Presidential candidates probably do. Your insinuation that this is a mark of incompetence strikes me as just plain old prejudice, a knee jerk reaction to something unfamiliar. I get reinforces my impression that, as Anthropologist Fenella Cannell has noted, secularists (such as yourself) have unwittingly absorbed standards of Christian orthodoxy, since they seem as dumfounded as Christians do when Mormonism crosses Christian boundaries that to secularists should be arbitrary.
(I would further add: Is a belief in conveniently absent metal plates more irrational than belief in a conveniently absent Deity? Especially when we have numerous contemporary, reliable and consistent accounts of those who touched, saw and handled these plates?
And come on! Secular translations of Old Testament Pseudographia, even translations of the Koran, imitate King James English. I don‘t see how the same method should diminish the credibility of the Book of Mormon. Why wouldn‘t Joseph use the common language of scripture to translate scripture?)
I am tired of people implying that Mormon beliefs are marks of incompetence, when other beliefs that equally defy modernist constructions of “reason“ are not. Mormons have excelled in every profession and academic field. Feel free to use the patent explanation that we compartmentalize our “irrational” religious beliefs in a way that allows us to function rationally in every other aspect of life if you must. Compared to the alternative, I would actually consider that a charitable view.
One final excerpt from your post:
“I would go further. Mitt Romney, as a self-confessed Mormon, has stated his beliefs about the Second Coming as follows: "Christ appears in Jerusalem, splits the Mount of Olives and stops that war to kill the Jews. We also believe that over the 1,000 years that follow, the millennium, he will reign from two places: that the law will come from one place, Missouri; the other will be in Jerusalem."“
I know that you have not said anything about the Mormon millenarian vision influencing foreign policy, but still for some reason such a to-do is made about it. In light of this apprehension, it is interesting to note how one non-Mormon scholar contrasts the potential influence of Mormon belief on foreign policy with the beliefs of, say Pat Robertson (who is now an advisor of the Hitchens endorsed Rudolph Giuliani). Dr. Maffly-Kip, a non-Mormon professor of religious studies at UNC, has said the following:
“Yet the Mormons' commemoration of American sites does not link American government to a providential plan in the way that, say, Pat Robertson sees the American nation as the New Israel. For Mormons, the American government does not necessarily represent the New Israel; but the land itself is the future home of Zion.
This distinction is significant for what it suggests about the desire that a Mormon president may or may not have to employ the federal government as a sacred vehicle. Such a move, given the church's ambivalent relationship to a pluralistic, secular government—the nation is good and necessary, even worth fighting for, but it should never be confused with Zion or with the religious community—seems highly unlikely. And having a Mormon president certainly seems less dangerous than the perils represented by a born-again president who equates his decisions with God's will. Because of their own history of persecution Mormons, by and large, are far more committed to the protection of individual rights and wary of governmental intervention than are conservative evangelicals.”
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594
Best to you!
Jd1
Posted by: John D the First | November 30, 2007 10:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Dr. Dawkins,
Thank you for your post. I enjoy your writings as they typically get me thinking and keep me informed of a certain brand of atheism that is becoming more and more popular. Since I am Mormon, I feel inclined to respond to your commentary on Mormonism.
“So much is obvious. However, following an excellent Slate article by Christopher Hitchens.”
I find it telling that you would find an article with so many historical errors “excellent.” I’ll assume you are not a student of Mormon history, so you were unaware of these errors.
For example Mr. Hitchens states “Later, in antebellum Missouri and preaching against abolition, Smith and his cronies announced that there had been a third group in heaven during the battle between God and Lucifer. This group had made the mistake of trying to remain neutral but, following Lucifer's defeat, had been forced into the world and compelled to "take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African race."
Here are some facts:
1). One of the justifications for the Mormon expulsion from Missouri was their alleged abolitionist sympathies. This was spawned by a pro-abolitionist opinion piece published by the Mormon church. Mormons tended to vote in block and with their continued migration into Missouri, Missourians feared the Mormon presence would unfairly strengthen the abolitionist agenda there.
2). The doctrine of pre-mortal black neutrality did not originate with Joseph Smith. The quotation Hitchens uses to justify his claim (without a reference) comes from Orson Hyde and was made in 1845. Joseph Smith was assassinated in 1844. Furthermore, the Missouri era was long over by 1845, Mormons were headquartered in Nauvoo Illinois and were preparing for their trek west.
3). There are other facts that might add some nuance to Hitchen’s portrait of Mormonism‘s founder. Though Joseph held some views on race common at the time (at the beginning of his career he seemed, like so many in his day, to think slavery was part of a natural order), at the end of his life Joseph Smith advocated that slavery be ended. In his Presidential platform he proposed that the federal government buy all slaves from southern slave owners in order to free them. He also taught that apparent differences in refinement and behavior between black and white folks were not due to inherent qualities, but differences in social circumstances (a liberal view in the 19th century). It’s not even certain that Joseph Smith approved the notorious Priesthood ban on blacks, as he ordained a man by the name of Elijah Able, who was black, to a higher office in the Priesthood and gave him a position of trust in the church.
Of course, I am disappointed by racist ideas that were promulgated in the 19th and early 20th century in my church, as I am disappointed by similar ideas in the surrounding culture in which Mormonism was born. To exclude the above facts however (plus those I include bellow), when trying to paint a picture of LDS history on race is irresponsible and demonstrates one is driven more by agenda than a desire to get at the truth. So in terms of its truth value, I would say Hitchen’s article falls quite short of “excellent.”
You also say:
“Are voters entitled to ask Mr Romney questions about his religious beliefs? Surely yes, if they affect his policies, for example over race relations: the Mormon Church banned black people from its equivalent of a priesthood until as late as 1978 (when Mormon Elders conveniently had a "revelation").”
I can assure you that adherence to Mormon belief and practice will not affect race policy negatively. Even before 1978, quantitative data provides evidence that Mormons were less racist than the general American population on several measures (See the book “The Angel and the Beehive“). Even today, studies show that Mormons have more liberal views on race than national averages (See book “Latter Day Saint Experience in America”). Though during the civil rights movement, some Mormon leaders, influenced by the John Birch society, expressed paranoia about an alleged communist/civil rights connection, *official* church statements expressed support for the civil rights movement and equal rights in secular sphere without regard to race.
Posted by: John D the First | November 30, 2007 10:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The greatest reason that sex outside of marriage is looked upon with interest by Americans, is that in America, when most humans get married, they make a commitment to their mate--sworn to uphold that commitment to their mate on their (believed) creator--the same creator who must allow them into Heaven.
If you do not abide by this law and have an affair-everyone is watching what happens next.
Posted by: Jeff Reed | November 30, 2007 10:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Moderate: "It it the mark of a simpleton to make such broad over generalizations."
Really, Moderate, why not say you disagree with him and give some good reasons?
Dawkins may be a lot of things you don't admire, but it's not very convincing to call him a simpleton. He's a Oxford professor and a best selling author.
Next time, please don't resort to name-calling. Say something substantive to show you're thinking about what you don't like about him, instead of just showing your distaste for the man.
Posted by: E favorite | November 30, 2007 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Maria,
"The primary reason I insist on my partner remaining monogamous is simple - Disease!"
You are right. There are many issues in human sexuality that simpleton Dawkins simply does not comprehend. What of Love? What of cherishing another? What of children? What of family?
Posted by: The Moderate | November 30, 2007 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dr. Dawkins,
I am an admirer of your work in genetics and for secular humanism. I'm also an atheist and scientist. However, I must strongly disagree with your stance regarding sexuality. The primary reason I insist on my partner remaining monogamous is simple - Disease! He could literally end up destroying my life, or at least permanently diminishing its quality, if he cheated on me. Even condoms don't protect us very well from certain viruses such as herpes and HPV.
Please keep this in mind when discussing human sexuality.
Thanks,
Maria
Posted by: Maria | November 30, 2007 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality."
It it the mark of a simpleton to make such broad over generalizations.
Posted by: The Moderate | November 30, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
re: Romney
As an agnostic, I find alot of religious beliefs pretty odd. I don't believe in virgin births, or God being manifested as man, in order to die, because blood is needed to forgive humanity of sins.
And yet I've voted for Clinton and other folks before him who profess belief in such ideas.
Honestly, religious beliefs will always be easy to find odd and weird. That does not mean the person is overall guillable or dumb though. While I"m a democrat, I find it VERY apparent that Romney is as politically saavy and skilled as it gets, and a real contender should he win the nomination. He's not some corn-fed Mormon babe in the woods. It's naive to think so overly literally.
In the end, I dont' really care what a man is doing inside his bedroom OR his chapel-as long as he shows some ability to seperate such ideas when necessary from his actual day job. Romney has shown to be able to do just that with his political manuevering. I don't agree with alot of his platform, but I don't hold it against him for growing up Mormon, finding faith in that religion, and continuing that religious tradition as an adult.
Posted by: nina | November 30, 2007 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Will somebody please explain how I started reading the responses to a question about sex outside of marriage and ended up reading an irrelevant diatribe about Mormonism in the middle of a rabbling essay condoning dishonesty?
Posted by: Casey | November 30, 2007 9:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
First off, could you give some reason why sex is a private matter? Also, are there any times when it does not fall under this category and by which criteria?
Secondly, you say you don't encourage all out promiscuity. Why not? If we can love all we want to, then let us be as promiscuous as possible and extend that love wherever we can! Let's go out and get those genes of ours wherever we can get them to spread!
Thirdly, you do realize that you are equivocating on love? I love members of my family, but that love will not be improved by sleeping with them.
Posted by: Phoenix | November 30, 2007 7:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
" 4th watch:
"Mr. Dawkins
Writes “George Bush has publicly boasted that God told him to invade Iraq,”
Will you back that up please or backtrack from that quote? You may be right but I would like to see that quote myself. "
So happens I saw it said live on TV. He even called it a 'crusade' (just the once) And a lot of Fundies on the Internet were trumpeting it as validation for the war before things started really going bad.
Posted by: Paganplace | November 30, 2007 6:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Steven Mading -
You make some valid points about the difference between open marriages and those in which monogamy is pledged "til death do us part."
In the case of the Clintons - or any politician, for that matter - they wouldn't get very far politically if they openly admitted that they had an open marriage, would they? They may well be forced to live a lie in their marriage so they may keep their public-service jobs.
We don't know what arrangement Bill and Hillary have, but I well remember the RW rumour mill at the time spouting that 1) Hillary was a lesbian and 2) Hillary was just as involved with Monica as was Bill, 3) their whole marriage was one of convenience and a sham.
I think Dawkins' point was that WHATEVER the case, none of it is any of our business. I think that's good advice, no matter what one's political persuasion.
Posted by: Mr Mark | November 30, 2007 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you so much for your thoughts. I whole-heartedly agree.
Posted by: Sage Engberg | November 30, 2007 5:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Doe… if that is really your name….
“It's irresponsible to share things you consider facts and possition them as facts when they are just your opinions”
Which, sir is exactly what you too have done. Your belief that Eden is north of Kansas City is based on your opinion. Sure it is shared with others, but so are the beliefs of Mr. Dawkins.
“could have never written the Book Of Mormon”
That sir is not a fact either… that is an opinion..
“why don't you read the Book Of Mormon and pray and ask God if it's true?”
I have myself done just that that sir, many years ago after long conversations with LDS missionaries. I struggled over the notion. I was revisited a few years later by another missionary, and once again struggled and prayed. It was revealed to me in my heart that it was indeed not the word of the one true God.
I suppose you will now tell me that this is not possible, that I must have misunderstood, or that I wasn't really listening... which is it?
Posted by: FB111 | November 30, 2007 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins says "I'm not denying the power of sexual jealousy. It is ubiquitous if not universal. I’m just wondering aloud why we all accept it so readily, without even thinking about it."
It is called common sense. When you are a kid and you burn yourself. You then readily, without even thinking about it, accept that if you put your hand in a fire you will get burned. Those who don't understand this or feel that they are somehow exempt, will continue to get burned. They just don't have any common sense.
Posted by: Tim | November 30, 2007 5:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Anon wrote:
" I, too, don't understand society's problems with polygamy".
Aaah, Anon, your gender is showing! What about polyandry? Think of it, one woman can sexually satisfy a number of men in a short time, while the reverse is not true. And think how well they could live, with many wage earners and few children to feed clothe and educate...
Posted by: Pam | November 30, 2007 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fools like you shouldn't be allowed to write. It's irresponsible to share things you consider facts and possition them as facts when they are just your opinions. Apparently you know where the garden of eden is not, which why you audaciously porported it's not in Missouri. I guess you're claiming to be a prophet, otherwise how would you know the garden of eden wasn't in Missouri. You're not a prophet but one day you'll know for yourself Joseph is and was a prophet and could have never written the Book Of Mormon and done all the other things he did if he fabricated the whole thing. Use your brain and a little bit of logic. He had no education. He died for what he claimed. He made no money off it. Why not just drop it all, especially considering all the persecution he went through. Would you die for your claims you've made in this article? I would venture to say you wouldn't die for anything you believe in. Well Joseph did. Use your brain. You'll know. One day you'll see with your own eyes and won't have to go by faith. In the mean time why don't you read the Book Of Mormon and pray and ask God if it's true? If you are sincere in finding truth then you'll take that challenge seriously, but judging by your illogical and irrational article I highly doubt you're seeking for truth but only to tear it down.
Posted by: John Doe | November 30, 2007 4:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ROLLAMO:
Actually the mormon GoE is north of KC.
http://www.utlm.org/images/adam_ondi_ahman.jpg
excerpt below:
Joseph Smith declared this new understanding of Genesis and the location of Eden during a trip through Missouri in 1831. Historian Fawn Brodie commented:
"Shortly after his arrival Joseph rowed up the Grand River to Lyman Wight’s ferry to explore land on the north bank in Daviess County [Missouri]. On a high bluff overlooking the river someone in the party discovered the ruins of what seemed to be an altar and excitedly led the prophet to it. After examining it Joseph stood silent, his eyes sweeping over the prairie that rolled away beneath him....The glory of the scene made Joseph heady as with new wine. 'This is the valley of God in which Adam blessed his children,' he said, 'and upon this very altar Adam himself offered up sacrifices to Jehovah....we will lay out a city which shall be called Adam-ondi-Ahman. Here Adam, the Ancient of Days, shall come to visit his people....' " (No Man Knows My History: the life of Joseph Smith, by Fawn Brodie, Random House, 1971, p. 211)"
Posted by: Possum | November 30, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Possum, Holy Talking Salamander! I'll check it out.
Posted by: RollaMO | November 30, 2007 3:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Note about the above comment I just posted:
I wrote it before I noticed Richard had made an addendum to the article. I composed the reply slowly (while working on other things in the foreground) in a word processor and pasted it into the comment box many hours later and sent it. I hadn't noticed that Dawkins made an addendum to his article in the intervening time. His addendum renders a lot of what I said moot.
Posted by: Steven Mading | November 30, 2007 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
While I'm a big admirer of Prof Dawkins and his tendency to recognize that the length of a tradition is not evidence of sanity or truthfulness in that tradition, which leads to his atheism and his tendency to rip into people's incorrect sacred held beliefs, there is one problem I have with this article. That problem is this:
Imagine that you want to enjoy nature for a while so you decide to cut off contact with outsiders for a few hours by turning off your cellphone and taking a nice long lazy stroll through the woods. Normally, that would be perfectly acceptable behavior and there's nothing unethical about it. But now what if I add one thing to the example: What if you did this on a day when you were supposed to be on-call for work, and had agreed ahead of time that you would be on-call? Then you've just broken a promise and that's unethical. it's NOT the act of cutting yourself off from communication for a few hours that's unethical. It's the breaking of the promise not to do so that's unethical.
And my problem with what Dawkins said is that he does not make the distinction between infidelity occurring in open relationships versus infidelity occurring in relationships where the parters promised monogamy to each other. His article acts like they're the same thing, ethically speaking. They are NOT the same. One involves a broken promise and the other does not. Just like taking a lonely walk in the woods is perfectly ethical - except when you promised your employer you wouldn't.
Breaking monogamy promises is NOT the same thing as being in a relationship that was openly agreed upon to be non-monogamous.
Posted by: Steven Mading | November 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ROLLAMO said : "I can assure you the Garden of Eden ain't around here"
You must be new the area... Just head down I-44 a few miles past Fort 'Lost in the Woods', You'll find 'Eden Roadside Park' (the garden got paved over to build Route 66) .... It's less than an hour away from you.
Posted by: Possum | November 30, 2007 2:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
W Stricklin said:
"There is no doubt Dawkins considers his view to be (morallY) superior to that of other persons"
So? What kind of person considers his own 'view' to be morally inferior to that of others? Do you?
Posted by: FB111 | November 30, 2007 2:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John Doe,
How does Dawkins know the Garden of Eden wasn't in Missouri? Because it didn't exist. Thanks for the giggle, though.
Posted by: f'real? | November 30, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Our society seems to be increasingly turning toward vengeful remedies to our hurts. No story of a murder is complete, any longer, without a sound bite from the victim's family expressing their overwhelming desire to witness the death of another.
Similarly, whatever a "wronged" partner does receives applause from the voyeurs who follow the tale.
I would suggest, however, that responsible behavior includes respect for the feelings of others; how can I really enjoy my pleasure knowing that it comes at the expense of others?
I believe this can require us to sometimes rise above our own passions and express love in times and places that will not incite others to upset.
Putting sex in a category with food, wine and art has a certain truth--sex can be a win/win and activity, whereas jealousy is almost always lose/lose. Nevertheless, to decry jealously as a base emotion while ignoring that sex is at root a very primitive instinct seems a bit lopsided.
When the voyeurs, (whether they be congress, the press, or 'friends') infringe on the protections and privacy of time and place, they are no less responsible for inciting jealously than the actors in the drama.
Posted by: John Swearingen | November 30, 2007 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ANON wrote: "I, too, don't understand society's problems with polygamy."
Multiple-spouse families are too complicated for government bureaucracies to keep track of, and families with that many "dependents" it would eat into tax revenues. When in doubt about anything, follow the money. As for individuals, people would probably be envious of individuals with more wives or husbands. Envy: there's a deadly sin for you.
Posted by: Ed | November 30, 2007 1:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"It's not surprising that some would immediately take this article as an endorsement of lying and adultery."
Timothy, it's not surprising because Dawkins made statements that were, in fact, explicit endorsements of lying:
" . . . he was entitled to lie about his private life: one could even make a case that he had a positive duty to do so"
"Telling a lie is often the only way to convey an effective 'No comment.'"
After asking the question "Shouldn't public figures be entitled to lie about their religious affiliations" he answers it with "Not always." Not always? So - there are exceptions to the rule that public figures are entitled to lie about their religious affiliations.
We don't know what the man meant - but that's what he said.
So - given what he's said, how else can this be interpreted other than arguing that it is moral (at least for public figures) to lie in certain situations in order to conceal or protect your personal life?
Posted by: Demos | November 30, 2007 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's not surprising that some would immediately take this article as an endorsement of lying and adultery. If anything, Richard Dawkins is advocating the protection of personal privacy, and simply used adultery to illustrate that point. It seems we can't seriously examine any subject without complaint if the examination doesn't end with a flat out "it's wrong" or "it's right." That's also part of the point - it's an individual choice, and he as an author shouldn't have to wrap it up with a neat little bow for us. I would venture that everyone didn't read the WHOLE piece before going off on their little rants...
Posted by: Timothy | November 30, 2007 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I did not find it necessary for the secondary
statement to be issued because the essence of the
arguement was clear.
Private sexual behavior is in fact private.
Religious views, as they may impact foreign
policy are FAR from private. It is beyond
comprehension that we would consider a presidential candidate who holds Mormon views,
which are "nut case" in the extreme.
It has been stated by the candidate in question
that his views are in line with general Christian
belief. This is so far from the truth that we
are compelled to challenge him, and reject his
stand as dangerous to humanity. We cannot allow
this man's finger "on the button."
Religion is not private in the public realm
because it reveals the deepest belief system
of the individual, and provides a guide for
action, in the best sense of the word "religion."
We can't let this slip into private morality
or belief as we could all face the consequences
of a system that does not elevate all of humanity
with love, but divides and judges some and
gives a guide to action that could endanger the
world.
Posted by: Bonnie Sheldon | November 30, 2007 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I did not find it necessary for the secondary
statement to be issued because the essence of the
arguement was clear.
Private sexual behavior is in fact private.
Religious views, as they may impact foreign
policy are FAR from private. It is beyond
comprehension that we would consider a presidential candidate who holds Mormon views,
which are "nut case" in the extreme.
It has been stated by the candidate in question
that his views are in line with general Christian
belief. This is so far from the truth that we
are compelled to challenge him, and reject his
stand as dangerous to humanity. We cannot allow
this man's finger "on the button."
Religion is not private in the public realm
because it reveals the deepest belief system
of the individual, and provides a guide for
action, in the best sense of the word "religion."
We can't let this slip into private morality
or belief as we could all face the consequences
of a system that does not elevate all of humanity
with love, but divides and judges some and
gives a guide to action that could endanger the
world.
Posted by: Bonnie Sheldon | November 30, 2007 1:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Dawkins takes an approach that is quite common among those who would try to defend the moral appropriatness of lying in certain situations. He essentially builds the case for tact and discretion - that there are certain things that are best left unsaid and undiscussed, and that we need to be careful about both how we say things, and how we leave them unsaid - and then missapplies that case by using it to claim that it is moral to claim things that are simply untrue (to lie).
Why? Perhaps because discretion and tact are both hard - while lying is easy (or seems easy in the short-term). Lying also holds out the apparant promise of getting us out of more difficult situations than discretion. Of course, there are some situations we shouldn't be able to get out of, and that's why honesty (a refusal to lie) is important - if forces us to face the truth even when it may not be comfortable or convenient.
The issue here isn't whether an oath has been taken, but whether you can trust what an individual says. Mr. Dawkins has told us that it's not only forgivable, but in fact morally correct for a public figure (someone like himself, perhaps?) to lie about things they find impertinent, personal, or a distraction from more important issues.
What might that include? Past sexual relationships? Past employment? Past financial dealings? Credentials? Whether research was done personally or by an assistant? Any or all of this could be characterized by a person put on the spot as "impertinent," "personal" or a "distraction."
It could also be critical. Did you pull strings to avoid the draft? Did you pay for trips to visit your mistress with public funds? Just who did collect the data used in that study - and how do we know what it wasn't altered? You claim that your opponent isn't an intellectual - what does your university transcript look like? Who did your task force talk to? That guy you recommended for Homeland Security - just what kind of background does he have, and is he on the take?
Honesty isn't just a religious shibboleth, and it's not just a quaint old-fashioned custom. Honestly is a necessary pre-requisite for trust.
And nothing can be more corrosive of trust than the claiming the right and obligation to lie.
Posted by: Believer | November 30, 2007 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This is pure BS. Your point might have merit if he had sex with a friend of the family, a neighbors wife, or somebody he met in a completely private manner. However would your argument still hold true if he had sex with a neighbors daughter, yours for instance. He had sex with an intern, the daughter of an American family who didn’t send their daughter to Washington for the sexual gratification of the President of the United States. I don’t believe that the intern program was intended to provide our leaders with sexual playmates, although it may appear that way.
Was the entire episode blown way out of proportion, duh, yeah! Was it a sin, I don’t think so, but my opinion hardly matters.
Is it forgivable, that depends on the offended spouse. Forgiveness is NOT mandatory.
However DUTY to lie? Get your head out of your butt. That is a real stretch!
Posted by: Robert | November 30, 2007 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No one elected to be the chief executive of a city, state, or nation is entitled to provide anything but the truth before a legislative or judicial authority. Perjury laws are created to maximize the application of fair and equal laws for all, including elected officials. The President of the United States is sworn to uphold the laws and is the chief executive officer charged with administering laws. To lie to a judicial authority about any allowable question before such a body is perjury. I could care LESS what Mr. Clinton did in his private life. I could care LESS whether he chose to have any consensual sexual contact with anyone. I DO, however, care that the President of the United States chooses not to fully enforce the laws as he has sworn to do.
Posted by: FullTimeModerate | November 30, 2007 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you thank you thank you for this post!
Finally, someone in the media willing to take a stand on this delicate issue.
The reader can agree or disagree, but it sure would take alot of argument to disagree with the theme of the post.
I happen to agree with your points 100%.
Posted by: JG | November 30, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks Mr Dawkins for an excellent essay.
I'm reminded of the great novel,"Love in The Time of Cholera",by Gabriel Garcia Marquez,in which a doctor admits to his wife of many years,that he had had an affair with another woman. This admission crushes his wife,who would have preferred a lie.
His honesty was,in a sense,a kind of bragging,even
though it was made out of love for his wife.
Honesty is not always the best policy. There are times when it's wiser not to tell,especially in relationships.But it takes a writer like Marquez to point this out;that there are times when the truth does more harm than good.
Posted by: Drew | November 30, 2007 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This was a great read. The P.S. was not necessary at all. Thanks for your thoughts! ML
Posted by: Matt L. | November 30, 2007 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E-Favorite:
Surely it's worth debating whether infidelity is morally bad. Far be it from me to suggest it isn't worth debating. But the author of the main piece, who is supposedly Richard Dawkins, has produced a very poor piece of argumentation that does not fit well, as far as I can tell, with the ideas for which Richard Dawkins is best known.
Posted by: Alexander | November 30, 2007 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins apologized for some, but not all, of his
position on Clinton.
Privacy fails his test too. Clinton was in the oval office, the peoples place when he played with
Monica. He deserves no cover for his mindless
performance will doing the peoples business in
the peoples place. There is and should not be
any privacy in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Jeff C | November 30, 2007 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This article reveals much more about the dark heart and mind of Richard Dawkins than of anyone he mentions in his article.
Posted by: Bill | November 30, 2007 11:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I can assure you the Garden of Eden ain't around here.
Posted by: RollaMO | November 30, 2007 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I always find it humorous when people try and fit human biology into some kind of moral framework. There is no, and never has been a moral structure that will control human biology. There isn't a man out there, that faced with an attractive intern pulling up her skirt to show off her thong, that will cover his eyes and say, this just isn't right. When the skirt comes up, and the goods are in his face, morality goes right our the window. It is the biological nature of the animal. The author is correct that Bill had a duty to lie. No man with a wife and children, is going to voluntarily brutalize his family with the knowlege of his indescretion, nor should he. Every man out there, no matter how much he may deny it, in the same situation would lie his a$$ off. Indeed, his family wants him to lie, because they don't really want to know. In any case, it is a private matter, even if you are in the public eye, and most people understand this. That is why, during the impeachment where the pugs insisted on dragging the whole thing out into the light of day, Bills approval rating remained high.
Posted by: Hank | November 30, 2007 11:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I always find it humorous when people try and fit human biology into some kind of moral framework. There is no, and never has been a moral structure that will control human biology. There isn't a man out there, that faced with an attractive intern pulling up her skirt to show off her thong, that will cover his eyes and say, this just isn't right. When the skirt comes up, and the goods are in his face, morality goes right our the window. It is the biological nature of the animal. The author is correct that Bill had a duty to lie. No man with a wife and children, is going to voluntarily brutalize his family with the knowlege of his indescretion, nor should he. Every man out there, no matter how much he may deny it, in the same situation would lie his a$$ off. Indeed, his family wants him to lie, because they don't really want to know. In any case, it is a private matter, even if you are in the public eye, and most people understand this. That is why, during the impeachment where the pugs insisted on dragging the whole thing out into the light of day, Bills approval rating remained high.
Posted by: Hank | November 30, 2007 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
W Stricklin posted: "And for the record, the first bumper sticker read "Nobody died when Nixon lied." At that time, the bumper sticker was aimed at Ted Kennedy's sexual misadventures and the following attempts to cover-up his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Interesting how this old phrase has now been resurrected and twisted by those who view any personal action related to sex as strictly personal."
What is your point? Relevant is relevant.
"Better Dead Than Red" originally referred to Communism, but I am making a couple of T-shirts that say it for the current election cycle...and I don't mean communism in this context.
Posted by: Anonymous Too | November 30, 2007 11:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I always find it humorous when people try and fit human biology into some kind of moral framework. There is no, and never has been a moral structure that will control human biology. There isn't a man out there, that faced with an attractive intern pulling up her skirt to show off her thong, that will cover his eyes and say, this just isn't right. When the skirt comes up, and the goods are in his face, morality goes right our the window. It is the biological nature of the animal. The author is correct that Bill had a duty to lie. No man with a wife and children, is going to voluntarily brutalize his family with the knowlege of his indescretion, nor should he. Every man out there, no matter how much he may deny it, in the same situation would lie his a$$ off. Indeed, his family wants him to lie, because they don't really want to know. In any case, it is a private matter, even if you are in the public eye, and most people understand this. That is why, during the impeachment where the pugs insisted on dragging the whole thing out into the light of day, Bills approval rating remained high.
Posted by: Hank | November 30, 2007 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
W Stricklin - thanks for the response.
I often think my views are morally superior to other views I hear. However, that doesn't mean I hold myself up as a "moral guide."
I have heard Dawkins speak several times and do not have that impression of him at all. He discourages providing guidance or having "followers."
I hope you go back to read his recent addendum to this essay. He's obviously capable of clarifying and amending his thinking, based on thoughtful input. This is something rarely, if ever, seen among "moral guides" but quite typical among good professors, as you yourself have indicated.
Posted by: E favorite | November 30, 2007 10:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You jackass. You're an absolute moron. How do you know where the garden of eden was? And how can you be so sure it wasn't in Missouri? Basically what you're doing is claiming to be a prophet. How else would you know it wasn't in Missouri and to proclaim it with such mocking audacity? You're a fool as well to think a poor farmer boy could fabricate such a book with little or almost no education at all. Use your brain if you have one. It takes little rational thought to realize what Joseph Smith accomplished would have been impossible for a person of his abilities. One day you'll know the truth and will proclaim Joseph Smith to be a prophet not a charlatan.
Posted by: john doe | November 30, 2007 10:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Dawkins:
When you came to DC to promote and sign your book "The God Delusion" at Politics and Prose, I said to you as an atheist I strenuously disagree with your position. You have probably forgotten, but I hope you have considered alternative viewpoints.
Being a biologist, you should have known by now that everything humans do, especially universal and common behaviors, are natural, including those you like and dislike. Such natural behaviors may sometimes be contradictory, self-destructive, socially unacceptable, or "morally wrong," but we can't help it, just like male lions can't help killing other lions' cubs.
Being religious or fanatic, being irrational, lying, having sexual urges and acting on it, infidelity, waging wars, territorial behaviors, racism, hate, aggression toward fellow men, stealing and robbing, etc., are pervasive and perhaps permanent human nature. To accept their natural existence and reserve moral judgment (while not necessarily condoning them), like one would observe the behaviors of bees and ants, should have been drilled into a biologist.
You can't win this argument. Let people be religious and irrational and sometimes self-destructive. The "bad" in our nature is as valid and natural as the "good".
Posted by: A reader | November 30, 2007 10:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hank Whatever:
Our Constitution and laws are NOT based on Judeo-Christian belief. That is pure fabrication. Our Constitution and laws are based on Enlightenment ideals - Rousseau, Voltaire and others. Most Enlightenment thinkers and many of our founders were Deists, not Christians. We are very tired of this fabrication - you might want to open a history book sometime.
Posted by: DZ | November 30, 2007 10:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Dawkins
Writes “George Bush has publicly boasted that God told him to invade Iraq,”
Will you back that up please or backtrack from that quote? You may be right but I would like to see that quote myself.
Also you mention lying and note several well known liars amongst us with some bias.
Your line of reasoning is as old as Genesis, and that is-- When I or people like me lie, trust me its just a silly old fib, when my neighbor or a contrary view does so they are dirty rotten liars never to trusted again.
Truth be told lying is human nature and its wrong, only a stubborn pride attempts to justify it. You know the worst lie is the one you tell to yourself and insist on believing.
Posted by: 4th watch | November 30, 2007 10:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Lying in general is wrong. Period. Lying to people who care about you and trust you is, in particular, very wrong."
Bud - remember these words the next time your wife asks you if what she's wearing makes her look fat. :D
Posted by: Athena | November 30, 2007 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
E Favorite wrote :
W Strikin(sic): " Today, I intend to recommend they [my students] not look to Dawkins for moral guidance."
I bet Dawkins would be fine with that - he hasn't set himself up as a moral guide. Did you think he had?
---
Yes, absolutely. There is no doubt Dawkins considers his view to be (morallY) superior to that of other persons - as is clear to anyone who has read or heard Dawkins speak.
Regarding what I believe. Yes, I believe that anyone who holds the title of professor has an obligation to seek truth in both ideas and deeds. Indeed Dawkins himself in coining the term "meme" advocates the view that not just professors but rather each and every person has an obligation to advance endeavors and ideas having to do with “doing the right thing” – but you are probably correct that Dawkins – like many on the academic left - would adamantly refuse to use the term morality in relation to doing the right thing. Personally, I am saddened to see that in recent years Dawkins’ dedication to good scholarship has been overtaken by his political views and advocacy.
And for the record, the first bumper sticker read "Nobody died when Nixon lied." At that time, the bumper sticker was aimed at Ted Kennedy's sexual misadventures and the following attempts to cover-up his role in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. Interesting how this old phrase has now been resurrected and twisted by those who view any personal action related to sex as strictly personal. And according to Dawkins and his followers on this viewpoint, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton each have a moral obligation to lie about all following events that in anyway arose from their personal sex life!
Posted by: W Stricklin | November 30, 2007 10:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes, it would have been better if Clinton had taken Bush Sr's response as an example and did not make any comment whatsoever. However, once a statement is made especially a lie, it does become our business.
Posted by: Anthony | November 30, 2007 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment
We’ll see what the political fall-out is. So far, it’s much more atheists worrying about it than theists jumping on it. Speculating on why that is, perhaps it’s because, regarding marital “fidelity,” we’re dealing in the realm of evidence and personal experience, not faith in an unseen, supernatural being and belief in the importance of events that supposedly took place centuries ago with ancient people.
No, this is real-life stuff, and people, even devout Christians, can’t deny their own real-life thoughts and deeds. They know how their society and religion tells them they should act and think and how that differs from how they do act and think.
Stephen, above, is a notable exception – and perhaps the beginning of the backlash. However, look at his words – the typical overstatement and bravado that all but the most sanctimonious Christians can see through.
Posted by: E favorite | November 30, 2007 9:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thanks for your, once again, brilliant analogies and comments Dr. Dawkins. Ive read The God Delusion and I think I remember your touching upon this very subject.
Ive never loved more than one male at a time in terms of female amorous love. That in off itself could be proof of how the old Religious beliefs have had their affect on me. But I do know when I see an attractive guy how that makes me feel. If he's kind and attractive that's a strong double appeal. Anyone who says that this doesn't happen to them has either lied or have somehow successfully oppressed something very natural. Anyone has the right to do this if they so choose. A quite troublesome and painful way of living though and it will surely manifest badly in some way or another. Because of this antiquated way of coupling most feel forced to continue in this painful lie for the sake of their much loved partner who believes or says he's religious. Keeping the female partner under tight wraps but allowing himself secret liberties, whatever they may be. Children even older children that have also been trained in the "religious way" suffer undue anguish when they face their parents "sins" to each other. And this keeps being passed down from generation to generation. This is a ridiculous way of looking at personal sexual coupling. Its a huge lie. I hope it changes soon. I do believe the marriage oath is due some updating soon. Or we should do away with it all together if unsolvable. It's only become a very ugly expensive trap. Re-evaluating things and then making revisions or perhaps dropping them all together is what is needed. If we do this it should start changing things for our upcoming and future generations of couplings. If people choose to get married, they should rightfully still be free beings and it should not cost them, spiritually, emotionally (guilt-wise) or financially. Perhaps a much longer annulment period --say 10 years.
Too many have wasted away in these deceitful situations. Like one of my favorite life gurus, Dr. Wayne Dyer says "If you change the way you look at things the things you look at will change. We should do this and change the outdated rights and laws too. Thank you Dr. Dawkins for helping me and others see this.
Posted by: Freespirt4ever | November 30, 2007 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Thank you Prof Dawkins for so clearly setting out some of the logical conclusions of the atheistic worldview...marital infidelity, selfishness and lying in public office...or anywhere else it suits you. Throw into the mix the 'great' atheistic leaders of the past Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot and Kim Il sung and it speaks volumes.
While not all professing Christians will live up to the Biblical ideals, it seems self evident to anyone with an ounce of common sense that a world where honesty, trustworthiness, and fidelity are strived for would be much better all round!
The passionate hatred Prof Dawkins shows for all believers is a true and logical outworking of his faith. The true outworking of Christian faith should be love, humility, grace and justice...which faith would you prefer?
Posted by: stephen | November 30, 2007 9:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There are always two sides to a story. Perhaps a baseline needs to be established ?
Judeo-Christian belief indicates that a man is to take one wife. In the old days, after a marraige had taken place, man and wife were separated for one year as a test for the union. And so we have the orgins of a line in the Holy Bible, "What will you do when the bridegroom leaves ?". There is an implied theory here that the Creator only blesses monogomous unions.
Perhaps based on nature or biology that certain species in the animal kingdom mate for life which are said to be more noble creatures such as bald eagles ? I will leave that argument up to a biologist.
However, if our Constitution and Laws are based on Judeo-Christian belief, then there is an implied right of annonymity or privacy through Christianity to the Constitution. I have argued and will continue to argue that privacy is one of those inalienable rights for all humans. That privacy being an inalienable right is something that cannot be given to or taken away from an individual. So we have the concept of tresspass taking away a person's privacy or an individual gives away that right of privacy, an individual choice.
Guess what, human beings lie. We are taught not to lie, and when we do lie, we are taught to tell on ourselves. George Washington admitted to cutting down that cherry tree. The problem I had with Clinton/Lewinski scandal was that it was none of my business. And yet numerous sources and publications shoved it down our throats for ratings. Wasn't there some other more important events going on in society at that time ?
Swiftboating or charactor assissination has brought gossip to a professional level. Am sure there was much gossip around the JFK administration but it was not put in public domain. At least parties back then respected private lives of public servants. And one of the Inquisitors of this affair was having an affair himself, at the same time, and so being a hypocrite, another Judeo-Christian term, was brought to a new level.
Finally there is a definition of the disease or pathology of voyeurism in which the inflicted seek their own pleasure or gratification by viewing others involved in sexual acts or nakedness in secret. That certain people become obsessed violating the privacy of others which are most voyeur-able at the time.
Did our so-called leaders at that time think that rubber-necking the President's intamcy was fair game ? What was the true motive for this charactor assissination ? Did not the hypocrites wish to villainize The President for their own egos run amuck, a holier than thou attitude ? And don't the same parties continue trying to villianize his wife for political gain ? Watch the debates carefully as certain parties just love to get laughs or applause suggesting that Hillary be sent to Mars or that she is to be rejected based on contempt for her soul being. Talk about your higher ordered species.
Posted by: Hank Whatever | November 30, 2007 9:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris E -
Thanks for the explanation.
What W has done is inexcusable, too. No doubt in my mind about that. But getting into W's faults would be too big of a tangent.
Posted by: Tampa | November 30, 2007 9:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I must admit that I am always surprised by the intellectual argument Mr. Dawkins forwards in this article concerning private behavior and 'sin'; given that in the arena of faith, there is no such thing as private behavior. A person of faith understands that what a person does in private indicates the nature of their true character; what they do in public may or may not be.
With regard to the actions and subsequent falsehoods concerning those actions by former President Clinton, the 'sins' attributed to him were done so by God, not by man; man just happened to agree.
Mr. Dawkins, whether he agrees with the concept of religion or not, must allow for the fact that someone who claims a Christian faith is expected to live within the tenets of that faith. President Clinton consciously chose to violate the tenets of his faith, e.g., Commandments 7 and 9, a fact that cannot be denied (nor should it). Nor can it be denied that from the perspective of his constituency, he violated the trust endued upon him. He cannot, therefore, expect us to allow his 'sins' to go unrebuked; nor should he expect further trust to be granted until such time as he repents and seeks forgiveness, not only from his god, but also from those whom his actions offended.
You see, Mr. Dawkins, there are many on this planet that do consider it important for a person of faith, especially one who chooses to accept a role of leadership, to exhibit a true Christian character at all times, granting that no one is perfect and mistakes will be made. All we ask is that when a behavioral error is made, that one accepts responsibility for his or her actions and subesquently seeks forgiveness from all who were wronged by the behavior in question.
Posted by: Steve Weston | November 30, 2007 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Respect means not only that we should not lie under oath. It also means that judges and prosecutors should not abuse the oath by asking impertinent questions of witnesses under oath: questions about private matters where nobody has the right to pry."
Oh, come on, pull the other one. Questions about sex in a sexual harassment case aren't impertinent. They are directly pertinent.
Posted by: John P | November 30, 2007 8:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mus81: "I cannot help but be struck by the political unwisdom (the most polite word I can think of) of creating any sort of association between marital infidelity and atheism."
Too bad it seems that way, because Dawkins made no such association. Does this imply that anything a known atheist says is associated to his/her atheism? If he were seen humming Christmas carols and eating figgy pudding, would that imply an association between atheism and celebrating Jesus' birthday? Or could it imply musical preferences and a sweet tooth?
Certainly he is an atheist who commented on marital sexual exclusivity, and because he is a prominent atheist, it's hard not to make a connection. But please consider that he is also a biologist and that it was most likely the biologist speaking - about simple biological realities.
Posted by: E favorite | November 30, 2007 8:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Lying in general is wrong. Period. Lying to people who care about you and trust you is, in particular, very wrong. As President of this great land, you have a duty to maintain the trust of the people you serve and represent. President Clinton broke that trust when he lied about sexual activities. Was it "as bad" as Bush's lies about the war? Heavens no, but it still was a lie - a lie told with great in-your-face conviction in several publicly broadcasted interviews. I do believe strongly that his indescrestions were a private matter between him and his family. And therefore, yes, the proper response would have been "it's none of you business".
Posted by: Bud | November 30, 2007 8:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Professor Dawkins wrote:
"Officially, Bill Clinton was impeached not for sexual misconduct but for lying about it. But he was entitled to lie about his private life: one could even make a case that he had a positive duty to do so."
This is factually inaccurate and logically flawed. Congress didn't simply create the impeachment situation out of whole cloth. President Clinton was involved in a sexual harassment case and lied under oath. Surely, Professor Dawkins isn't saying that sexual harassment cases aren't to be taken seriously, is he?
This whole he-only-lied-about-sex meme is intellectually dishonest. The President lied under oath, not to protect his marriage or his privacy, but to avoid liability from his previous acts of sexual harassment. That was obstruction of justice and that was the reason for impeachment. Shame on you, Professor Dawkins for suggesting otherwise.
Posted by: Mike Spehar | November 30, 2007 8:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Nice going Prof. Dawkins! With this illogical rant, you have just provided enormous quantities of ammunition to the religious right who already feel that non-believers are a bunch of animals with no morals or values. Your "correction" will never be seen in conjunction with the original post by those who wish to prove there is no morality without religion. Could you please THINK before you post such trash on a public forum? Geez!!
Posted by: Bud | November 30, 2007 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
This is the second Washington Post/Religious Section article/Op-Ed aimed at apoligizing for Bill Clinton's sexual proclivaties while in office, this week.
All of you that have participated in the promotion of Hillary and Bill ~ will not be going to hell. Rather you all will live a long life, wrestling with you tortured guilt for writing prapanda that would knowingly result in the gross neglect of enormous populations.
Thanks for allowing me my vioce, and have a nice day. ;o)
Posted by: Shocked and Appalled! | November 30, 2007 7:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Dawkins: If you had worked for Clinton and he had made unsolicited sexual advances toward you, you would not think the prosecutor was being "impertinent" and abusing the oath by asking questions about Clinton's sexual advances toward other employees.
Posted by: MikeW | November 30, 2007 6:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have added a longish note to the end of my article, apologizing for making it possible to misunderstand, and clarifying matters.
Richard Dawkins
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | November 30, 2007 4:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Darwin: “We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)
Darwin: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)
Darwin also wrote of the decline of the ancient Greek civilization, which he had studied, because of the decadence that crept into their society. Despite their intellectual advances to greatness, their civilization had not retained its dominance because of this decadence that gradually weakened its power as a nation-state.
So what course is advisable so as not to repeat the mistakes of the Greeks?
Darwin again: "With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred. I need not, however, repeat what I have said on this head in the fourth chapter. Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment--originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men,
ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit."
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another...and this would be natural selection."
Darwin: "We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social
instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to
us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant."
I'd rather read Darwin than Dawkins any day. Have a nice day, all.
Posted by: Darwin (rolling over) | November 30, 2007 4:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Well, it appears this English teacher is under threat of fifty lashes because a plush toy was going to be named after a *boy* named Muhammad.
It's silly. You can say, 'Umm, that's highly offensive to us and here's why,' but apparently the *boy didn't know, either,* and people leapt to screaming indignance about it.
You can't expect everyone to know every thing about your culture, and then think it merits a punishment that'd make the old British Navy blanch. Really.
Time to be reasonable, not make an international incident about a kid's toy. That's not about 'defending the faith' that's about hysteria and unrealistic expectations.
Posted by: Paganplace | November 30, 2007 12:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Hmmm, now if only The Jihadist could for once address the flaws in her own religion.
She does a good job in addressing the flaws in other religions or lack thereof so all is not lost.
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | November 29, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In the last sentence, I meant to say "slightly more than yours".
Posted by: Siddique Malik | November 29, 2007 11:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mischka,
You pretend to be very open-minded, but then you think a child play was an insult to Muhammad. How does a child’s naming a teddy bear Muhammad insult Muhammad? You are an example of Muslim’s crisis of values. You declare that Islam is a religion of peace and this and that and a child names a teddy Muhammad, you think Muhammad has been insulted. Obviously, being brain-washed by the Quran and hadith every night for two hours turned you into a quasi-fanatic. The problem with Muslims is that they behave like cultists, don’t do this or that otherwise Muhammad would be offended. Leave Muhammad alone. He has been dead for 14 centuries. Worry about the living that fanatics want to kill. You understand the anger of a bunch of Sudanese ignorant. I don’t. They are all hateful bigots whose self-righteousness is only slightly than yours.
Posted by: Siddique Malik | November 29, 2007 11:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
And I said Hitchens, rather than Dawkins. Mea culpa. :)
Posted by: Paganplace | November 29, 2007 11:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Aww, I'm sorry I missed you, there, J.
Personally, I think he raises a valid question: namely that the presumption is that many think anything but the Christian model of monogamous marriage constitutes 'sin' and cheating, but, ...says who?
"Is Dawkins still thinking this is the sixties with "Love In", "Free Love" and "group love/sex"; the seventies with "Wife Swapping?""
Ah, how dismissive can one get, I wonder. Read on. :)
"Is Dawkins just being mischievous with this essay of his to get a a rise of righteousness out the believers?"
I think he's questioning the presumption that how one religion judges a certain private matter actually constitutes the right or wrong of it.
"We all know that regardless of what the participants of the free love, group sex and wife/partner swapping said, the green eyed monster reared its ugly head."
Of course, jealousy comes up in open and polyfidelitous relationships as well as monogamous ones. It can get complicated, and it's not for everyone, but that doesn't mean the idea is ridiculous or never works.
You see, people are given to theorize about jealousy as if their presumption that the model of humans-as-competing breeding pairs is actually our nature or biological destiny... I think a very reason why monogamous models of marriage so often don't work precisely cause we're not actually that kind of animal. We're more like pack animals, we rear children in interdependent groups, among whom all manner of sexuality takes place.
While I'm sure there may be elements of breeding competition involved, I think jealousy can be such a painful and dark emotion because it relates to something far more basic: Fear of abandonment.
That's *death* to a lot of our instincts. And monogamous models may be a way people seek to protect themselves from both the jealousy and abandonment, but they aren't perfect ones.
Tailoring the form of a relationship to the individuals involved can in fact provide as much or more support and security as trying to follow social convention.
Monogamous people have prejudices that it's about 'people getting more sex when that's 'cheating,' or that it's 'selfish' or 'debauched' or something.
There's no real good reason for that.
It applies when making public presumptions and judgments about private behavior, especially without knowing the real story.
"There may be now be a new "sin" - stating things to the public one would not do in private. I just hope he was being ironical. If not, he's deluding us on human relationships, especially of the most intimate kinds."
Well, I've been in poly relationships that worked just fine, and I'll say it. I'll also say there's nothing delusional about what Mr. Hitchens says. All kinds of arrangements can work just fine among people of appropriate and complementary temperaments, ...it can be complicated to form these, but there are advantages: more attention to go around, and no one person is under that pressure to be everything to one other person that often occurs in monogamous things. It helps not to think of it as a bunch of separate monogamous relationships, which is a bit of a bias that tends to make people believe the whole idea is ridiculous. It's not.
When alternative arrangements go right, you usually don't hear about em, is all. :)
What's ridiculous is to presume that only a certain model of people isn't merely 'succumbing to base instincts' or 'empty gratification,' or 'temptation to sin.'
You kind of have to think that way in the first place, I suppose, to make that assumption.
Cheating on a promise, that's a different matter.
I tend to agree with Prof. Hitchens, though, ...lying about an imposed question which should really be none of Congress' business, never mind the business of Congress... where 'No Comment' would be presumed to be an admission of guilt, ...I have trouble being that indignant about it, especially compared to the lies that people let slide in the publicly-pious administration we've had since then.
Then again, Clinton isn't Pagan, and as a Pagan I take oaths and the truth very seriously, personally. Certainly, any betrayal of a marriage is a serious matter. But the fact is, if he and Hillary had *had* a prior arrangement, would it be possible for them to admit it?
The peccadilloes of past presidents is the least of our worries, now, though.
Posted by: Paganplace | November 29, 2007 11:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Crewsin:
I feel compelled to chime in about thermodynamics. The increasing order of Earth's bioshpere comes at the "expense" of the sun's increasing disorder. It's a gigantic fusion reaction!
Sorry, but it's so very true about Creationist's "scientific" arguments being utterly ignorant of science, and about the tendency of the religious to simply believe those they trust, since AUTHORITY substitutes for RATIONALITY in the religious mind.
TAMPA:
I was referring to GWB's excessive use of signing statements when signing bills into law. He routinely claims the authority to interpret them to his advantage as he sees fit, and to ignore executing the ones he doesn't like. It all falls under the theory of the "unitary executive".
Posted by: Chris Everett | November 29, 2007 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The President of the United States, who takes an oath of office and is the ultimate representative of this great country, is not "entitled" to lie under oath, which is why Clinton was impeached. Clinton was sued by an employee who alleged he made unsolicited sexual advances toward her. She argued that he made similar advances toward others in his employ which supported her allegations. While being deposed under oath Clinton swore that he never had sexual relations with anyone who worked for him. That was a lie under oath by the President and was, without a doubt, an impeachable offense.
Posted by: MikeW | November 29, 2007 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The President of the United States, who takes an oath of office and is the ultimate representative of this great country, is not "entitled" to lie under oath, which is why Clinton was impeached. Clinton was sued by an employee who alleged he made unsolicited sexual advances toward her. She argued that he made similar advances toward others in his employ which supported her allegations. While being deposed under oath Clinton swore that he never had sexual relations with anyone who worked for him. That was a lie under oath by the President and was, without a doubt, an impeachable offense.
Posted by: MikeW | November 29, 2007 10:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd like to thank Prof. Dawkins for continuing to take the unpopular point of view that science is more reasonable than faith. Only in the US could a scientist have the term "sanctimonious" be thrown back in his face. Dawkins lays out the facts and interprets them the way he chooses. If you don't like the interpretation, come up with a better one! This process is qualitatively different than saying that something is right or wrong because the Bible or Faith says so; there's no controlling for what the heck anyone can believe.
I do wish Dawkins had been more clear about President Clinton's lie. Posters here are right that Clinton was commanded to tell the truth in a court of law, and maybe he should have taken the fifth. But don't we all agree that, the Supreme Court notwithstanding, the trial was a fraud in the first place. If Ms. Jones had come forward herself without the funding of Scaife, the Arkansas Project, the American Spectator, and disgruntled troopers I'd have more sympathy for her - as would all Americans. Because we understand this was a frivolous right-wing plot to lay a perjury trap we give Mr. Clinton our thanks and 65% approval.
Finally, anyone saying that we are evolving into "higher" forms needs to define "higher". Darwin never said anything about where we're going just the cause and effect and natural selection.
Posted by: mus81 | November 29, 2007 9:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jealousy is easy to understand and perfectly rational. Sexual intimacy promotes (though it obviously doesn't guarantee) loyalty to the sexual partner. Having sex with more than one person gives divided loyalties. Indeed, with reasonable frequency, sexual infidelity leads to a switch in a person's "primary" loyalty, leading to relationship breakdown. It shouldn't be hard to see that a person who wants to sustain a relationship will rationally view infidelity as a threat to that relationship.
Yes, it is in principle possible to love more than one person. However, relationships between consenting adults involve considerable mutual accommodation and shared confidences. This becomes more difficult when more than two people are involved. Rather than look at a parent who loves multiple children, a better analogy for erotic love involving more than two people would be the situation of divorced parents with shared custody for their children. That turns nasty rather frequently.
Finally, I cannot help but be struck by the political unwisdom (the most polite word I can think of) of creating any sort of association between marital infidelity and atheism. Given the unpopularity of the former, the association will only enhance the unpopularity of the latter.
Posted by: John Carson | November 29, 2007 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Alexander: I think it is the real Dawkins. And I think it’s courageous of him to say it. Though, I’m not sure I’m glad he did it. Please read on……
As the Penguin Flies: "If you want an open marriage, go for it. It's none of my damn business. However, to think that this model would be for the good of humanity is best termed as "utterly ridiculous."
Please note, he said he was “wondering aloud” not espousing a “model…for the good of humanity.” I can understand how you thought that, though – it’s even more shocking – and to more people – than the proposition that God is a delusion.
It’s so ingrained it just doesn’t register. Meanwhile, we all know the “infidelity” statistics are quite high – for both sexes – though men are ahead of women. We know that Europe is more accepting than the US. We know, reading history, that people will “stray” even if facing dire consequences. Some of us know, from our own private experiences, how hard it sometimes is to be “faithful” even when we’re devoted to our spouses and children and well aware of the societal consequences if we’re found out. Some of us know that we can “cheat” and get away with it. The spouse never finds out (or never lets on that they do) and life, after some wrenching guilty pleasures, goes on as if it never happened.
Isn’t this worth acknowledging and thinking about? Or is it a taboo even stronger than admitting that religion is man made and there is no evidence for God?
Posted by: E favorite | November 29, 2007 9:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey crewsin:
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
If you're going to use the second law of thermodynamics you should at least know what you're talking about. See those words that say "in an isolated system" ... do you see that? Do you know what that means? Do you know what entropy means?
Remember also that it only applies in macroscopic systems.
The problem with you creationists is that you take your talking points from frauds, you believe them with the same fervor you believe the other nonsense filling your head. You are using words you do not understand to support the rubbish in your brain.
"An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head"
Posted by: Oort | November 29, 2007 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Bill Clinton lied under oath.
Posted by: drawlings | November 29, 2007 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yeah Clinton lied. So did Bush. Vote them out. Bring back Wilbur Mills and Bob Bauman. Watch Bullworth for insight.
Who was Paula Jones, or rather who gave money and legal support to Pual Jones, Jennifer Flowers etc.? Who was behind all that. Probably was a set up, just like Monica ( oh the poor girl, yeah right), and with the Attorney General and Waco.
Rush couldn't make babies perhaps due to prescription drug addiction.
Posted by: Dr Bill | November 29, 2007 8:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I wonder, to what extent Mr. Dawkins has thought of this bit: Our commitment to one partner flies in the face of our physical "wants" in many cases. We deny our base humanity in this by not acting on physical impulses and wants. It'd be a lie to say that no one has ever WANTED another in a sexual sense, but this in itself is not an "upper brain" sort of thing. So, if denying our base humanity and impulses is what you want, commit yourself to one person and realise, through the use of your higher mental faculties that you don't NEED another. As for the "jealousy" as it was termed, I don't think it's that simple. There is betrayal in these actions that goes beyond jealousy.
It is ridiculous of anyone to think there is "only one" person for them. However, it is even more ridiculous for an adult to act childishly by seeking a form of instant gratification from another "lover". Much of the problem here is not that these people are "cheating" on their spouses, but that they are at the very least concealing that fact. I doubt anyone will propose that people lie and conceal more often so as to create a more beautiful society.
I agree with Mr. Dawkins on nearly everything the man has ever said, this however is ridiculous. Do not mistake marriage for a wholey religious concept. All this being said, I do not deny people the right to do anything they want in these regards. If you want an open marriage, go for it. It's none of my damn business. However, to think that this model would be for the good of humanity is best termed as "utterly ridiculous."
Posted by: As The Penguin Flies | November 29, 2007 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This essay by Dawkins is rather...........(fill in the blanks).
Let us take it the the personal level as one got to walk the talk. So...........
- Will Dawkins allow his lovely wife to have sex with other men and him knowing about it?
- Will his wife allow the same for him?
We know Dawkins will say this is private and none of our business, but publicised and publicly exposed examples, as leadership by example, is effective to lead the way in a revolution of change, no?
Is Dawkins still thinking this is the sixties with "Love In", "Free Love" and "group love/sex"; the seventies with "Wife Swapping?"
Is Dawkins just being mischievous with this essay of his to get a a rise of righteousness out the believers?
We all know that regardless of what the participants of the free love, group sex and wife/partner swapping said, the green eyed monster reared its ugly head.
There may be now be a new "sin" - stating things to the public one would not do in private. I just hope he was being ironical. If not, he's deluding us on human relationships, especially of the most intimate kinds.
A good weekend to all.
Best regards
"J"
Posted by: Jihadist | November 29, 2007 8:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Did Richard Dawkins really write this?
"We are put on this earth" to "rise above" nature? Put on this earth by whom, sir? I thought you'd been explaining for years that we in fact are not "put on this earth" by anyone; we are a product of nature, and part of it. When did you suddenly become a creationist?
The Darwinian case for jealousy is obvious in the case of the jealous husband. An evolutionary argument for jealousy in the case of the wife presents itself quite handily, if you assume that for a sufficient, relevant period men did provision their women and children. And it's not hard to think of other arguments.
The remark about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri seems odd incongruous from anyone who does not take Genesis for the literal truth--although I suppose one might think that the (human!) authors of Genesis had a specific place in mind, much as one might find the "real" entrance to Platform 9 3/4 or the site of some crime solved by Sherlock Holmes.
And to "feel drawn" to an idea rather than considering the arguments? Well, plenty of people feel drawn to religion, and it has a lot of good mechanisms for making them feel drawn to it. But Mr. Dawkins wants people to be persuaded by the arguments, and to discard what they feel drawn to for the simple reason that it is false.
I am skeptical that Mr. Dawkins wrote this. If he did, he really needs to rethink it, and to support it with better arguments than he has offered here.
Posted by: Alexander | November 29, 2007 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Did Richard Dawkins really write this?
"We are put on this earth" to "rise above" nature? Put on this earth by whom, sir? I thought you'd been explaining for years that we in fact are not "put on this earth" by anyone; we are a product of nature, and part of it. When did you suddenly become a creationist?
The Darwinian case for jealousy is obvious in the case of the jealous husband. An evolutionary argument for jealousy in the case of the wife presents itself quite handily, if you assume that for a sufficient, relevant period men did provision their women and children. And it's not hard to think of other arguments.
The remark about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri seems odd incongruous from anyone who does not take Genesis for the literal truth--although I suppose one might think that the (human!) authors of Genesis had a specific place in mind, much as one might find the "real" entrance to Platform 9 3/4 or the site of some crime solved by Sherlock Holmes.
And to "feel drawn" to an idea rather than considering the arguments? Well, plenty of people feel drawn to religion, and it has a lot of good mechanisms for making them feel drawn to it. But Mr. Dawkins wants people to be persuaded by the arguments, and to discard what they feel drawn to for the simple reason that it is false.
I am skeptical that Mr. Dawkins wrote this. If he did, he really needs to rethink it, and to support it with better arguments than he has offered here.
Posted by: Alexander | November 29, 2007 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins isn't "On Faith" he's "Off Faith." He is openly hostile to any faith. What next, allowing Westboro Baptist Church to lead the debate on Gay Marriage?
Posted by: When OnFaith jumped the shark. | November 29, 2007 7:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"By the way, why does Darwinian evolution violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that everything in the universe is growing more disorderly? Evolution says organisms are evolving to higher forms. As they say here in the sticks "somthin don't jive""
Actually, Crewsin, you're incorrect: the Second law of thermodynamics says that the total disorder of a closed system will increase, not that "Everything in the Universe is growing more disorderly."
There's a big difference.
No jive. :)
Posted by: Paganplace | November 29, 2007 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gee, loved the comments. These faith articles bring out the nuttest and I mean that on all sides of issue.
My only thought...I would not want my daughter to marry Richard Dawkins. I'd like to see more willingness for fidelity.
Posted by: I am anonymous | November 29, 2007 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Richard Dawkins:)
Thank you for your essay re ""Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"
You essay here on this is a disservice to many atheists with its apparent lack and concern on ethics and values that makes man different from beasts. The personal is the political so the cliche goes.
As I am one of those religious types with religious minds that perplexed and frustrated you in spades with our self-righteousness and moralising, I will do so today to reaffirm your belief in the irrationality of believers. After all, human behavior is not rational from sex to war.
Surely you are not saying a public figure's personal ethics and values guiding his personal and private actions are none of the concerns of the public who elected them?
Of course sex outside marriage is a public matter where a public official is involved and it distracted him from official duties and responsibilities and especially during office hours - that is abuse of power and personal corruption.
Of course it is not forgivable when he is wasting time spreading around his genes to show he is the head baboon and buffoon for no appparent good if all his partners are on pills and he use condoms.
Of course it is a "sin" if someone can't even hold his end of commitment, responsibility and trust of even a core family unit in breaching it with larkish sexual escapades, even in White House closets with secretaries whose duties are also to serve the President's libido (Kennedy). That should be for college boys and girls, not "leader of the free world".
Of course private sexual behavior should be of concern as it is not private when it affects people of certain ages, income and public responsibilities and there are wide variations between both participants, even if both stated they are willing. Who would not give sex to someone more powerful for any personal and professional reason? Politics and prostitution - two oldest professions in the world.
Of course the religious types and minds care about private morality that usually spread into public - cheating and lying is like cancer. One lie leads to another. A lie does not stop with one person or on one thing. It keeps piling on.
Yes, "When Clinton lied, nobody died", but only for public cynicism to increase on leadership, on political small-mindedness, pettiness and rivalries, and the process itself.
Ability to cheat and lie on small things, on private matters, of course lead one to easily lie on matters of greater importance in the public sphere.
Saying, "I did not have sex with that woman" should not be an impeachable offense, but if a rape case?
Where a man puts his penis is Congress' business if the receiver of the penis is underaged. And who puts the penis in is obviously more powerful than the person who receive his penis. Unless the receiving person bites that penis.
It may be a journalist's business whether a politician once took drugs at university as it may show him to be susceptible to peer group pressure, or is reckless in trying harder drugs when he knows it can be addictive. How he respond to that when out in the media is also an indication of the stuff he's made of and the kind of man he is - Did he say yes he did but no longer so? Did he deny? Did he say it's none of your business?
The public has the right to expect accountability from public officials. The official is answerable to them. Prying into the private affairs of public officials will not lead to open season on everybody, but only on public officials. It will be a kind of "vetting" of getting the right ones into public office. After all, many public office holders are "slimebuckets" and "sleazeball" given to corruption and abuse of power, cheating and lying.
As for a human being having some kind of property rights over another human being’s body - well we all know throughout history that it is men who wants to control women he thinks belongs to him and be subservient to his needs and wants, and as 'trophies'. But women should not do the same. We all know that already as it is so obvious with no need for natural selection explanations.
Surely you are not waffling around on ethics and values and is confusing the private lives of private citizens with that expected of elected public officials?
People expect their elected leaders and officials to show human decency and personal responsibility, starting with those closest to them. We don't want their private affairs to spill into a public mess because they can't control themself and which they can't control because they are public officials.
This is the age of global TV and Internet. We can't apply French laws set up by self-indulgent and self-serving French aristocrats to stop their sexual indiscretions and escapades from being known to one another and being made public. Remember the book, "Dangerous Liaisions" that led to the law on this in France?
Freedom of information trumps privacy. Especially for those seeking public office or are public personalities in sports, arts, media and entertainment.
By the way, one can obviously tell when the public don't forgive a public official for anything. They demanded he resign or vote him out of office.
Thank you and best regards
"J"
Posted by: Jihadist | November 29, 2007 6:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It does not take a Ph.D. in anything to figure out that ingrained in the human psyche is an innate belief in right and wrong. Why do most humans worry so much about the way their acts of sexual behavior are perceived by others? Why do they care? The Scripures have an answer for this. Paul in Romans asserts that a residual of the unfallen human nature exists in every person. Therefore, even when they want to ignore it their conscience refuses to allow it. By the way, why does Darwinian evolution violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which states that everything in the universe is growing more disorderly? Evolution says organisms are evolving to higher forms. As they say here in the sticks "somthin don't jive"
Posted by: crewsin | November 29, 2007 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ha, those who proposing monogamy doesn't believe in evolution, they believe in Intelligent Design and creationism of something of that nature.
Yep, I should really start believing in Intelligent Design considering the source it is emanating from!
Posted by: PR | November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ha, those who proposing monogamy doesn't believe in evolution, they believe in Intelligent Design and creationism of something of that nature.
Yep, I should really start believing in Intelligent Design considering the source it is emanating from!
Posted by: PR | November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Ha, those who proposing monogamy doesn't believe in evolution, they believe in Intelligent Design and creationism of something of that nature.
Yep, I should really start believing in Intelligent Design considering the source it is emanating from!
Posted by: PR | November 29, 2007 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Chris E.:
"Are you sure you're not talking about Bush's signing statements?"
I'm not familiar with what statements you're talking about. Could you pleae help me out here? And are you talking about W, or his Dad?
Posted by: Tampa | November 29, 2007 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow. That's a lot to think about.
Personaly, I have no use for religious ideas of marriage. I think that if you want to make a commitment to one person, you don't need some guy in a silly hat and robe to say it's okay.
Posted by: Randy | November 29, 2007 5:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Christian for liberty: Apparently you have not read TGD, as you are under the impression that Dawkins would favor children taken away from their parents, or that he advocates denying you the right to believe whatever you want. It seems that you get this view by reading reviews of his book, which also very often deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent its actual content.
My opinion is that it is somewhat abusive to encourage a child to believe something for which there is no more evidence than a subjective interpretation of personal emotions and very old arbitrarily interpreted scripture to skyhook that belief to. The only resource children have available to evaluate what they are being told is intuition, which is wrong at least as often as it is right, and the innate inclination to trust and obey their elders, which is useful when it comes to imminent actual danger, but is dangerous when said elders are wrong, which the child cannot know, and the elders are not willing to be honest about this possibility.
Posted by: Felix | November 29, 2007 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Christian for Liberty -- Speaking for myself -- I respect your right to believe whatever you want, but I don't necessarily respect the beliefs themselves. I imagine Dawkins feels the same. He is a law-abiding citizen, after all.
Regarding "religious instruction" for children -- it's unfortunately religious indoctrination - "our set of supernatural beliefs for which there is no evidence is the right set." All I learned about other religions as a child is that they were wrong and mine was right -- and that I'd go to hell if I didn't believe it. That's not what I'd call "instruction."
What makes Dawkins sanctimonious? That's he's upfront about saying he thinks supernatural beliefs are silly? He's a scientist --many scientists think that (though, most don't say it straight out). They deal with the natural world. Thank Goodness - without science we wouldn't have modern technology and medicine. I'm glad they're doing experiments according to the scientific method and not depending on heavenly intervention the way they did in the times of of Bible.
Regarding name calling, sorry, but to me, it didn't seem very humorous. I suggest next time you avoid it, so you won't have to back off it.
Posted by: E Favorite | November 29, 2007 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Dawkins' main insight seems to be that our moral codes are ultimately derived as much from our primal emotions as they are from more "enlightened" sources such as human rights or spirituality (whatever THAT is), and when it comes to the extremely primal act of sex, our mores are particularly primal.
Thus, he challenges us to try to transcend the primal gut-wrenching reflexive response most of us have to polyamory (a new word to me), and instead try to derive our mores based on personal fulfillment - for us and for those we love. I think it's great that Prof. Dawkins has chosen a position that most of us, including me, instinctively reject. Once the gut settles, and on second reading, his ideas make for pretty attractive ideals.
On the flip side, Prof. Dawkins seems a little ill-informed on the Clinton case.
Posted by: Chris Everett | November 29, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Richard is echoing my own thinking on this matter. I know that I have my jealous moments, as probably most of us evolved ones do. But my marriage is healthy because we can discuss any desires we have, even if it may be for someone closer at hand than a movie star or fashion model. We're open and honest about this, and we therefore have good reason to trust each other. Christians keep asking, where is your evidence for love? Well, there it is.
Posted by: Felix | November 29, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
TAMPA:
"If he can pick and chose, without consequences, which laws he choses to, or feels like, complying with, then we become a 'nation of men and not laws.' That's not what we're supposed to be about."
Are you sure you're not talking about Bush's signing statements?
Posted by: Chris Everett | November 29, 2007 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Think honestly? OK.
Of course everyone has the right to lie. In any situation they like, the option to lie is always open.
If a lie is chosen, the question becomes: what consequences, if any, should there be?
If a president is a defendant in a sexual harrassment suit, and the federal judge has already ruled (in response to a motion filed by Clinton's attorneys asking the court to excuse him from answering certain questions)that those same questions had to be answered, and then Clinton choses to lie in response to those same questions, should there be consequences? The answer is clearly "yes" in my opinion.
Clinton, as president, is supposed to uphold the law. If he can pick and chose, without consequences, which laws he choses to, or feels like, complying with, then we become a "nation of men and not laws." That's not what we're supposed to be about.
I agree that there are times when consequences of infidelity should be a purely private matter. But the Clinton situation wasn't one of them.
Posted by: Tampa | November 29, 2007 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Of course one who lies about public funds, etc should be punished.
If one were to be impotent. Would he have right to lie about it (even under oath?) or not.
Think honestly.
Posted by: Right to lie or not | November 29, 2007 3:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I enjoyed reading this essay by Richard Dawkins, and I agreed with much of it. Several of his points need careful thought before I can agree that they are correct. I'm not so sure, for example, that the sexual behavior of public officials is entirely a private affair.
On the other hand I agree completely that the religion of a public official is NOT a purely private affair. Dawkins' comments about the dangers to the public of certain religious beliefs are right on target, and remind me of a previous ON FAITH question - Should there be a religious test for public office. My answer to that question was and is a firm "Yes indeed."
One thing is certain here: Dawkins challenges one's thinking, and that is good.
Posted by: Cecil | November 29, 2007 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Interesting that Dawkins, in considering whether it's reasonable for humans to have multiple lovers, is covering territory that has already been well explored by the "polyamory" community:
http://www.religionwriter.com/polyamory/polyamorys-faith-and-family-values/
Posted by: ReligionWriter | November 29, 2007 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Setting aside the silliness of Dawkins' rather emotional diatribe on religion, which, in tone and tenor, reminds resembled more the rhetoric of Iran's mullahs and the Taliban than of an intelligently reasoned argument, he misses a fundamental point. Clinton's behavior with a subordinate employee in the workplace and his subsequent lying about it in a duly constituted legal proceeding were not private. There wouldn't have been grounds for impeachment if he had merely cheated on Hillary with someone other than an employee in the private quarters and then taken the fifth (to the degree the latter was legally possible.)
Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 2:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
First and foremost, What, Mr Dawkins, do you have against Missouri? It’s a beautiful, wonderful, bountiful state (especially since we kicked the Mormons out.)
Among atheists, ‘sin’ lacks real meaning. I agree with the earlier post that said it is a law of another government, as long as that can be amended to say ‘voluntary law of another government’. I choose not to belong to voluntary organizations (including churches) that have laws (sins) that I do not believe are just and appropriate for me. I, as an American have that right. So for me, the concept of ‘sin’ is virtually meaningless. I obey three sets of laws, those mandated by the various governments that have jurisdiction, those mandated by the company I work for (voluntary) and primarily, the laws of my relationship with my family. My wife and I made promises (okay, we winked at a few of them), and we have promised to obey those rules. If I break those rules, and if caught, I will certainly pay a price. However, that which we deemed ‘legal/illegal’ may seem too loose or too restrictive to others, and that’s just fine. Their relationship and it’s rules are none of my danged business, or anyone else’s.
I can logically extend this concept to many forms of relationships, polygamy, same-sex, etc. with the rules of ‘marriage’ being very much like a civil contract. If the partners in the relationship agree to an ‘open’ relationship physically, then no sin, or crime is broken by ‘infidelity’. So it is only a sin if a mutual agreement has been breeched. (contracts are only valid between consenting adult humans, so don’t get all ‘gateway to incest/bestiality’ on me).
Posted by: Possum | November 29, 2007 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"It seems to me you're angry with him because he thinks your religious beliefs are silly. Go ahead and keep believing - it's your right and he knows it. Don't let it bother you what he thinks."
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I cou;dn't care less what Dawkins thinks of my religion. I am saying that it is patently ridiculous for Dawkins to claim that the religious are somehow uniquely self-righteous and sanctimonious, when in saying that he proves himself to be the same!
I happen to believe that children can understand an 'adult' concept like Christianity, and I find it chilling to think that he believes religious instruction of the young to be some kind of abuse. I would wager that if he has children he morally instructs them and tell them his worldview.
I do not find it the least bit clear that he respects my right to believe as I do, in fact I think he has made it clear he would do away with that right if he could. I, and the vast majority of Christians in America, would never dream of suggesting that raising children without a religion should be made illegal.
I really fail to see some serious name calling. In fact, I was just being humorous and even quoted a South Park episode about Dawkins and his ridiculous hubris. Mostly to Dawkins I am saying, "seriously dude?"
Posted by: christian for liberty | November 29, 2007 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This guy is a complete wack-job! How could Mr. Dawkins consider infidelity to be “human nature”? If being unethical is “human nature”, then maybe we should all go around killing each other and peeing around our house to mark our territories! Moreover, before Mr. Dawkins go around comparing humans to primates, maybe he should study the Gibbons and Indris. These two primates are monogamous and maintain very healthy relationships.
We are humans; therefore, we can make choices. Don’t try to put “choices” on the same level as “instincts”…because they are two very different things.
Posted by: BlueInstinct | November 29, 2007 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
An old American proverb: Maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion.
In the old days so to speak, prior to modern dna testing, this proverb was hilariously true. When the occasional red-haired child showed up people would often be heard to remark that "Red hair appears in people with two copies of a recessive gene on chromosome 16 which causes a change in the MC1R protein."
Not.
Holy hand grenade, get over yourselves already.
Posted by: Oort | November 29, 2007 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have yet to see any comments on Jesus' passage about divorce and adultery. So what do we find??
Mark 10:1-12,
"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.
The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html
However with respect to Mark 10: 1-12, it appears to be unique to Jesus. Whether John the Baptizer influenced Jesus' thinking on this matter, we will never know although The Baptizer did lose his head criticizing the adultery of Herod. (see Wikipedia for a JB bio).
See also http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/015_Against_Divorce
An excerpt:
"Luedemann [Jesus, 67] notes that the form of the tradition in Mark 10 reflects Roman divorce law, not local Jewish practice. He also observes that "the radical repudiation of divroce by Jesus is attested in both the Q tradition (Matt. 5.32/Luke 16.18) and by Paul in 1 Cor. 7.10-11. It follows that according to all the earliest material Jesus emphasizes the indissolubility of marriage." On Matt 19:12, Luedemann [Jesus, 209] suggests that the saying about eunuchs is probably an authentic Jesus tradition growing out of his own practice as a single male."
Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | November 29, 2007 1:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment
W Strikin: " Today, I intend to recommend they [my students] not look to Dawkins for moral guidance."
I bet Dawkins would be fine with that - he hasn't set himself up as a moral guide. Did you think he had?
Posted by: E Favorite | November 29, 2007 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rich - can you condense those last paragraphs into a few lines? We all know it's a load of tripe, but if you could get women to buy it...gold, baby! Gold!
Posted by: Erik Washam | November 29, 2007 1:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Lisa:
Yes he did. Shame on you.
Posted by: Russell D. | November 29, 2007 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yesterday, I recommended to a class of 150 students that they each read the Selfish Gene, a book written by Richard Dawkins. Today, I intend to recommend they not look to Dawkins for moral guidance. When Bill Clinton lied under oath about his sexual activity, he was being sued for sexual harassment. The Supreme Court had ruled that a civil suit could be brought against a sitting president. I believe the Supreme Court was wrong - and also, that President Clinton should have fought the decision and refused to testify. Instead, he chose to lie and brought on a personal and political crisis. If Clinton had a moral obligation to lie, does this mean that all men being sued for sexual harassment have a similar obligation? Or that women (or men) in divorce cases have an obligation to lie about any sexual activity that is relevant to the case? Of course not. Dawkins has his head in his duffle bag on this issue.
Posted by: W Stricklin | November 29, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I recall that Clinton lied under oath in the federal lawsuit, both in his interrogatory answers and in his depostion - this was confirmed by the Judge in that case, and is the basis for why Clinton was disbarred as an attorney in Arkansas.
Now, the question of whether the Supreme Court messed up by letting a sitting president be subject to that type of questioning while in office is a very important question, but a different one than whether Clinton obstrutcted justice and lied while under oath in a federal court case.
That Clinton found himself in a situation where he had to either lie under oath or tell the truth about having sex with an unpaid intern and others is unfortunate. But, having been forced into that unfortunate situation, he was judged by how he acted in that situation.
For me, religion has nothing to do with it. He lied, under oath. It's simple to me. I expect more from a President.
Posted by: Tampa | November 29, 2007 1:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
George Bush certainly did not declare that God had told him to invade Iraq.
Posted by: Lisa | November 29, 2007 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
In this article, Mr. Dawkins not only condones dishonesty, he advocates it. That leads me to wonder why anyone should ascribe merit to anything he says?
He criticizes the Mormon religion for what he saracastically calls their "convenient" truths. Yet Mr. Dawkins' philosophies offer no logically compelling alternative.
It certainly would be "convenient" for a public official who has cheated on his wife and abused his offices of employment for sexual self-gratification to conclude not only that he should lie about such things to the public, but that he was morally obligated to lie under a theory of a societal "duty" to protect the privacy of his personal interests.
It would be "convenient" for one who desires to do whatever he pleases, caring not a whit about the consequences to spouse, children, society or self, to say there are no responsibilities for sexual conduct, nor is there a God nor is there any sin. After all, if there were no responsibilities, no God and no sin, there could be no guilt, no remorse, no punishment.
Something in my gut tells me that Mr. Dawkins' philosophies are wrong and a recipe for unhappiness. He likely would respond that I am deceiving myself. Funny thing is that even if he were right, according to his world view, Mr. Dawkins surely would have to approve.
Posted by: DCJ | November 29, 2007 1:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
While I agree with Mr. Dawkins that your sex life is a private matter, I do not agree that he was "... entitled to lie about his private life". The reason why former President Bill Clinton was impeached was because he lied under oath. He committed perjury, a punishable offense.
It was unfortunate that this episode was taken so far, but when you are legally required under oath to tell the truth, you tell the truth. What worries me the most about former President Clinton is not that he lied in an interview on public television but that he did not have respect for our laws, which he, as President of the United States, took and oath to protect.
Posted by: Stephanie | November 29, 2007 1:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton was not convicted in his impeachment trial because the general public believed special prosecutor Starr had crossed the line by dragging Clinton's personal life into the Whitewater investigation. Even though the technical charge was the lying to the prosecutor rather than the infidelity, the public considered, as you no doubt would, that a man had a right to lie about what was not the government's to ask about. The public let their congressmen know that they opposed conviction and congress listened...
Posted by: Rich | November 29, 2007 1:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Good point. The flip side of demanding total truthfulness from everybody is minding your own damn business in the questions you ask them.
Posted by: SqueakyRat | November 29, 2007 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
John F,
Good point!
To go one further on that; if they did not know for certain, why the rush to war.
And when there were no weapons found, why did the mission change to bringing democracy to the Iraqi people, and the lame offering of "Isn't the world a much better place without Sadam in power"?
Why no "Oops, we thought we KNEW", why the rush without knowing, why send Colin Powell to the UN, why leak the identity of Valerie Plame?
If the idea is that they did not lie because they never KNEW FOR SURE, what is the explanation for all the other dubiousness and dihonesty?
Posted by: Are you KIDDING?! | November 29, 2007 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Christian for Liberty - what makes you sound desperate is your name calling -- and for some reason, you're doing it to me too, referring to me as "E person" when you know my moniker is "E Favorite." To me, it's a sublte put-down suggesting you're threatened and want to minimize my credibility. Thus, I become an anonymous "person" intead of a person with a name.
reagrding this Dawkins quote:
"So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?"
DO you know the context? He commented that we would never call a child a "Republican child" or a "Marxist child" -- identifying children with adult concepts they couldn't possibly understand, but instead would think of them as children of republican or Marxist parents. He suggests we do the same with religion.
It seems to me you're angry with him because he thinks your religious beliefs are silly. Go ahead and keep believing - it's your right and he knows it. Don't let it bother you what he thinks. Actually you probably think some other people have silly religious beliefs. But you know they have a right to them.
You certainly don't seem to have respect for his points of view, so what does it matter that he respects yours?
Posted by: E Favorite | November 29, 2007 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
To quote Hillaire Belloc "The Microbe" '- O let us never never doubt what nobody is sure about.'
Posted by: ayo | November 29, 2007 12:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Most of my objections to this article have been written already. On the subject of polygamy, it seems that humans are well suited for serial monogamy or polygyny. One problem with sexual freedom that I don't see here is disease. Cure sexually transmitted diseases, and I will be thrilled to hear Prof. Dawkins opinions on human sexual behavior.
Another issue not yet addressed is the blind acceptance that genes control human behavior. Genetic determinism has more in common with religion than science (think Calvinistic predestination) and inaccurately reflects the complexity of cellular mechanics.
Posted by: dendariihokie | November 29, 2007 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The idea of loving more than one sexual partner at a time makes for good fantasies but, in practice, it leads to pain. It is condemned for good reason. In most cases, it has real victims - a partner who is lessened by it and a family that is weakened or destroyed. And this is not because we are too narrow minded to rise above our jealous nature, but because most people crave trust and loyalty from our partners and want to share that trust and loyalty with our children. Ironically, infidelity leads to loneliness.
Posted by: Rick | November 29, 2007 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Your warped view of the world was revealed in the first paragraph of this ridiculous blabber. "Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires . . ." Are you kidding me? Do you really think that secularism, humanism, atheism are somehow exempt from the infection of sanctimonious self-righteousness? PUH-lease!! The attitude conveyed in your pitiful thesis is clear confirmation that sanctimonious self-righteousness is not the exclusive territory of the religious. Your elitist spewings prove that you are sitting atop a high horse that most religionists nary dream of climbing. It is also clear proof that "PhD doth not a wise man make!"
Posted by: Paco | November 29, 2007 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I'd like to comment on Mark Vander Woort's comment above that members of the Bush Administration cannot be accused of lying about the existence of WMD's in Iraq because "no one...knew for certain" and therefore there was no "awareness of lying" by such officials and therefore no lie. Nice try but you're a little confused about what the lie entailed. If the truth is, as you correctly state, that "no one knew for certain", then saying that one knew for certain that WMD's were there (as Administration officials did) was most certainly a lie.
Posted by: John F | November 29, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E FAVORITE:
I don't have the book in front of me, but I can find some quotes to illustrate my point.
'Perhaps you don't realize how desperate such name-calling makes you look.'
Perhaps you do not realize how inconsistent you are. I am not really desperate about anything, I just bristle at the idea that what I believe, after painstaking reflection and research, makes me a retarded drone...
Dawkins and his minions argue that their position on issues for which it is impossible to collect empirical data are irrefutable. I could not possibly care less about whether you are an atheist or not, I am willing to agree to disagree. What I take umbrage is Dawkin's et al's assumption that because I hold belief in the God of the Bible and find for historical reasons that it is true, that I must be a victim of a corrosive meme.–
"Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are the victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it."
Why wouldn't that self-same logic apply to Dawkin's position were it true?
"I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
Does this suggest a tolerant live and let live attitude? No? But then many atheists, including Dawkins, fault Christians for believing that they in fact have the truth.
"The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism."
I fundamentally disagree. Does that make me desperate? Stupid? Or can intelligent people be presented with the same material facts and come to different conclusions about immaterial issues?
"A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one."
What data does Dawkins present to support this?
"American political opportunities are heavily loaded against those who are simultaneously intelligent and honest"
B/c they need be religious. Are you getting my point yet? I guess Christians in positions of authority are all both unintelligent and dishonest.
"So isn't it a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?"
Yes indeed. Here Dawkins is referring to his oft repeated belief that raising a child in a system of life-benefitting morality that is based on the belief that there is a life after this one with a judgment of your actions is tantamount to child abuse. In other places he compares it to sexual molestation.
So. Please tell me E person, why exactly is it that I do not have a right to believe what I think is true and raise my children in the best way I see fit? Maybe I am missing your point, but Dawkins makes it clear that he wants to eradicate beliefs that are incompatible with his. He even went so far as to sign a document stating that religious upbringing should be illegal, but later retracted it, most likely just to save face in what was an obvious parallel of the same type of thought crime he loves to attribute only to people of faith.
Posted by: Christian for liberty | November 29, 2007 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I applaud the POST for sponsoring this ON FAITH discussion place. Our society (our world) needs a place where thoughtful, non-mean-spirited people (they actually exist) can discuss issues like sex and death (even "sin") and listen to others do the same in a spirit of seeking to understand instead of being righteous and self-satisfiedly judgmental. Fear (judgmentalness, self-righteousness, need to control others) inspires so much public discourse it seems - a fear that a loving, "New Testament" God does NOT inspire - rather I think a fear inspired by not trusting that a loving God exists.......
I loved Dawkins' Woody Allen quote because it delightfully suggests several levels of truth that i am sure the God I understand would find amusing (Jesus would surely have laughed out loud at it at least when he was out of the hearing of the Pharisees - whose Pharisaic troops are still with us...)
It is only a short time ago that sex and death were never thoughtfully discussed by the adult generation - especially in public. Thus - at least my parents' generation in New England - were never prepared to share their wisdom and experience with my generation or deal with sexual desire and dying in other than a fearful non-way. Things haven't changed much in my generation (b 1937) but at least we are talking about it.
One of the gifts of recovery for me has been getting to know some others (hundreds really) by listening to their life stories and walking with them - discovering that they are much like me or me like them, despite any apparent differences of shape, sex, color, culture, religious, even political views. The new book LISTENING IS AN ACT OF LOVE put together by David Isay says it all to me. This book was published to mark the recent recording of the ten thousandth interview by the CPB StoryCorps Project. It is my experience that listening as non-judgmentally as I can is not only an expression of love for my neighbor but even more powerfully a freeing gift of love to my self.
Intending to listen with as little of an agenda as possible seems to have helped me and others to discover that many of my fears are groundless and the ones that are reality based can be managed if i am prepared and persist in preserving my boundaries. Attack seems to be the order of the day in dealing with public fear and also the anger at discovering that the Second Great Commandment is more important to our species and the planet than un-regulated capitalism. Intending to listen non-judgmentally has actually meant that I've come to be fond of some neo-conservatives and learned from them (here and there). I have experienced the adjustment to realizing i am wrong and fearful sometimes in my own "progressive" righteousness... And can laugh a little about it.
So, since the God I understand has forgiven those fearful folks who become berserk over anything Clinton (and me for my beserking over W and his fearful group), perhaps with the help of this POST blog and other fora there is a way to create a New Common Ground in our (still amazingly open) society and listen and work together (outside the Beltway :-)
Posted by: David Gray Remington | November 29, 2007 12:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When Clinton was being serviced by that intern, who was essentially an employee, he was not entitled to any privacy! He was supposed to be working - you know - taking care of the peoples' business, as he used to say ad nauseum. The taxpayers of this country had every right to drag him through the mud to get at the truth - indeed, it was our duty to do so. I'm glad he got nailed, and impeached. Proper treatment for a scumbag.
Posted by: Realist2 | November 29, 2007 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is it possible that Prof. Dawkins' numerous hatreds have caused him to be deranged?
Posted by: James currin | November 29, 2007 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is it possible that Prof. Dawkins' numerous hatreds have caused him to be deranged?
Posted by: James currin | November 29, 2007 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You all seem to forget one thing. Our military has a very strict code of conduct. Romantic interaction between superiors and those working for them is strictly prohibited.
As Commander-in-Chief, Clinton was bound by those ethics rules just like any other military man or woman.
Politicians create rules for the populace and then act as if they are exempt from those rules. If you don't want your private life under public scrutiny don't run for office and become a celebrity. Kind of simple isn't it?
Posted by: Gaby | November 29, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment
""If a public figure wants to take a stand against inappropriate titillating questions by journalists or judges, the courageous and ethical choice is not lying, but confronting the question head-on. "Your question serves no legitimate public interest. Stop driving people out of public service. Next question." Or, "I will not answer such questions." And take the argument to the public arena.""
___________
Public arena Judy? If you refuse to answer a material question under oath, it doesn't go to the "public arena", you go to JAIL for contempt of court. Susan McDougal already tried your plan as I recall....
Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 12:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have the utmost respect for Mr. Dawkins, and I think, theoretically, that he is correct: Human sexual jealously is generally not a good thing. However, I'll say what I've been saying to friends and lovers for many years now: I have never met a person, male or female, who can honestly tolerate someone they love and with whom they have an intimate sexual relationship having sex with someone else. Oh, lots of people talk a big game about the "polyamorous lifestyle," and they generally make arguments very similar to that of Mr. Dawkins. But in practice, as I've said, I don't know anyone who isn't bothered by their partner having sex with another person.
Evidently, the sexual union is so intense, so primal, that we quite "naturally" are bothered by sharing our partner with someone else. In the early history of our species, I suspect we were much more polyamorous or polygamous. But at some point monogamy, at least in principle, became the norm for most of the species. And perhaps with very good reason.
On the other hand, I think nearly all humans, male or female, are "naturally" sexually attracted to people other than their monogamous partner. So there's an obvious tension here, as there is in many other aspects of life. We all have attractions to other people. And we can act on those desires. But as soon as our partner does it, it generally hurts. We can't tolerate the thought of our partners having that same level of intimacy with someone else.
So I think sexual jealously and the preference for monogamy are partly rooted in biology and partly rooted in the complex social milieu that has evolved over the centuries.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 29, 2007 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Is the threat of AIDS or other STI's a Darwinian-enough reason to want fidelity?
Posted by: Andrea | November 29, 2007 12:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but for me where Pres. Clinton's private life crossed into the public domain was when he apparently pursued sex with employees or others over whose careers/life he had outsized influence. This is unfair to the employees propositioned, and to their colleagues who wonder if "pets" get privileges. Lying to a grand jury wasn't "necessary"; it was the height of cowardice. It would also be a matter of public interest if an affair, and the concealment of the affair, compromised national security. Not fiction: I recall scandals (not Pres. Clinton, though) about compromising dalliances with beautiful Russian and East German spies.
If a public figure wants to take a stand against inappropriate titillating questions by journalists or judges, the courageous and ethical choice is not lying, but confronting the question head-on. "Your question serves no legitimate public interest. Stop driving people out of public service. Next question." Or, "I will not answer such questions." And take the argument to the public arena.
Posted by: Judy | November 29, 2007 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I usually agree with you Prof. Dawkins, but not about Clinton's "duty" to lie under oath. He had a duty to refuse to answer the question. Starting with Gennifer Flowers, Clinton needed to say "It's none of your business and you can ask until you're blue in the face, or we can discuss public policy."
Posted by: snead | November 29, 2007 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Nice analysis. You only missed one key FACT there up on your Oxford Univ. high-horse.
When then Gov. Bill Clinton, at a Ark. state conference, stuck his private parts in a NON-consenting state employee's face (Paula Jones) , that was a WORKPLACE SEXUAL ASSAULT, not a private sexual encounter - correct? Therefore, Ms. Jones had a legal right to recourse through our court system INCLUDING the right to depose Bill Clinton under oath. That is the ONLY reason that we EVER heard about any of this sick crap - correct? If Bill Clinton had limited his dalliances to CONSENTING women in his private life as Pres. Kennedy apparently did, we would never have even known that any of this happened - correct?
So tell me Dr. Dawkins.....just how many years of post graduate study did it take you to be able to overlook OBVIOUS FACTS that would not elude my 5 year old daughter? JC.
Posted by: JC | November 29, 2007 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Colorado Kool Aid posted: "The question he was asked was material to the lawsuit that he was a part of. His positive duty was to tell the truth in this instance."
His duty may have been to tell the truth because he was under oath, but the question about Monica Lewinski in the Oval Office had nothing to with Paula Jones' allegations of sexual harassament from when he was the Governor of Arkansas years earlier.
Posted by: Are you KIDDING?! | November 29, 2007 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes the fundamentalist mind is interested in controlling others. Yes, fundamentalists are often the world's biggest hypocrites (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay et. al) Yes the are often transactionally immoral and yet pound their bible or koran.
However, its ALWAYS better to simply say "I'm a private person, thank you." Or perhaps "That is none of your business".
Frankly I'm pissed because Clinton's tryst gave the hypocrites a giant opening and an entire year of the nation's progress was lost.
Bush deserves the impeachment because lying to congress, subjugating the constitution, and appointing agency staff to actively undermine the mission of the government agency are all three high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sex between consenting adults never is.
Posted by: JBE | November 29, 2007 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Yes the fundamentalist mind is interested in controlling others. Yes, fundamentalists are often the world's biggest hypocrites (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Tom Delay et. al) Yes the are often transactionally immoral and yet pound their bible or koran.
However, its ALWAYS better to simply say "I'm a private person, thank you." Or perhaps "That is none of your business".
Frankly I'm pissed because Clinton's tryst gave the hypocrites a giant opening and an entire year of the nation's progress was lost.
Bush deserves the impeachment because lying to congress, subjugating the constitution, and appointing agency staff to actively undermine the mission of the government agency are all three high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sex between consenting adults never is.
Posted by: JBE | November 29, 2007 11:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mark vander Weert: “If I, for instance, were to learn that my wife of 27 years was having an affair I’d be devastated. Don’t ask me why”
Can’t help myself – Beyond breaking the promise of sexual fidelity, what about the other issues, e.g., what would the role of lying play? Or feeling stupid, knowing that you had been effectively duped? Or taken advantage of because you’d spent time chastely at home, reading the paper or watching TV, or getting the kids dinner when she was out having fun? Or feeling pitied, wondering if your friends knew and thought you were a fool?
Consider that it’s not primarily the sex -- It’s the feeling of betrayal – and could have been another kind of betrayal that could have given you all the same feelings. What if she had an inheritance she never told you about that she was squandering on high-stakes gambling when you thought she was out-of-town on business? Or on cocaine? Or giving it away to her no-good brother? What if she were secretly putting in long hours working on the political campaign of a candidate she knew you abhorred?
Sex may by the most common way married couples betray each other – because in our culture, you pretty much have to lie to do it – but it’s not the only way and not necessarily the worst way.
Posted by: E favorite | November 29, 2007 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It seems to me that Dawkins is hardly the man to discuss what an ethic for mankind should be. He at once subscribes to Nature as the ultimate moral authority and at the same time wants to "rise above nature." Rise above nature to what? A higher existence? An enlightened existence? Obviously a selfish existence. The world's religions, especially those of the Abrahamic tradition, have provided timeless avenues to approach the difficult moral questions of humanity such as jealousy and the nature of love. Dawkin's shallow ethic of selfishness is hardly convincing and even less applicable to real human interactions where a moral law is at work.
Posted by: Joshua Lehman | November 29, 2007 11:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of giving your word. That should count in any social group. If you want to love many than do not commit to one. No one forces you to do this. You give your word to someone that you will foresake ALL others, if that is not your intent then don't do it. Therefore if you can't not keep you word to one how can you keep it for many? Committment is for the strong willed. Not for someone who wants a different flavor every night. It is what makes us different. If after giving your word you find, (as many have) that you have made a mistake. You act accordingly. You tell the other person in your life and you both move on. Everyone should have the ability to be happy. You NEVER go home to a spouse when you have been with someone else, unless that arranagement has already been discussed and agreed upon. It seems simple enough to respect others. There is always an exception but the rules are clear even too the most elite.
Posted by: cate | November 29, 2007 11:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dawkins is clearly and absolutely revealing his “private thoughts” in this new fanciful deduction.
If one has a “Private Addiction” I can guarantee it will eventually affect others.
Fortunately Abe Lincolns “Private Life” supported his public actions. And as the world has just witnessed; the Death of Sean Taylor was produced by the Actions of someone’s “Private Life.” Now we are all involved.
Yup, I think Dawkins is scared and has something to hide?
He certainly is an intelligent man and knows science well. But there is so much more to living then the limitations of science.
Posted by: Keith Bianchini | November 29, 2007 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That is exactly what I kept saying at the time, a gentleman does not talk.
Posted by: Alexander Susskind | November 29, 2007 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Issa, when someone is acquitted, it does does not mean they were innocent. It means they were not guilty beyond reasonable doubt (in this case, with a partisan jury). Can you say O.J.?
But I will not be so obtuse as to think I can look into your personal attitude in this matter and deem you are lying, as you did a few minutes ago. I believe you are mistaken or maybe overreached your point. Just like maybe you truly believe the Neocons actually planned to steal an election using the courts before it happened, and that they were behind 9/11. If so, understand that that the majority of Americans deem it utter foolishness.
Posted by: TomH | November 29, 2007 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I’m not so sure about that. Say Monica was an Israel Agent. She taped the phone sex she had with Bill and kept it, sort of like how she kept the seamen stained dress but not by accident rather she kept the tape intentionally. Then she hands it over to Israel intelligence who give it to the prime minister who walks in to the Oval Office and plays it to Bill while he is listening to the impeachment hearing on the radio. Now, what do you suppose Bill would be willing to give the prime minister to avoid having those tapes playing on late night talk shows that evening? Do you think billions, or perhaps committing American troops to battle? I mean after all, he would be saving his presidency from ending in disgrace and what a disgrace. Perhaps the lives of a few thousand American boys might be worth it to him or Bush for that matter. I agree you will be right when the time comes that the President can fornicate with his secretary on TV and no one minds. Until then forget it.
Posted by: Godsavethetroops | November 29, 2007 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
OOOOHH, I'M SORRY, I would very much like to put you under oath and ask you how many times a day you masturbate. How would you answer such a question? And do you doubt that if some investigative reporter actually had a photograph of Bill Clinton committing that act in the Oval Office, that the same crowd of self righteous, pious neoconservatives would not try to impeach him for that?
Bill Clinton should never have been asked such private questions under oath. It was Ken Starr's duty--not Bill Clinton's--to ensure that questioning of Mr. Clinton had to do with any sort of crimes he may have been accused of. Anyone with a modest cvollection of brain cells can see that this was a contrived perjury trap.
I would like to get Rush Limbaugh under oath and ask him why in his three failed marriages he failed to sire one child of his own. I think it is because he is gay. He loooooves big, strong, swaggering military types.
Posted by: Jaxas | November 29, 2007 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I'll consult Richard Dawkins' *very* convincing academic recounting of why I shouldn't be jealous next time someone is unfaithful to me in a relationship. I'm sure it'll make me feel loads better to know that from the perspective of evolutionary ethics, I'm just being irrational to feel hurt and betrayed! After all, its just my outmoded genetic instinct to make sure my seed is spread.
Thanks Richard!
Posted by: PoliticsGuy | November 29, 2007 11:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"But he was entitled to lie about his private life: one could even make a case that he had a positive duty to do so."
You are not familiar with the facts here. He had a duty to tell the truth to the court that was asking him questions. He was under oath to tell the truth. The question he was asked was material to the lawsuit that he was a part of. His positive duty was to tell the truth in this instance.
All other questions he could lie about, but not the one that got him into the most trouble. You have chosen the wrong example to use in constructing your central thesis. It makes you look ignorant in the process.
Posted by: colorado kool aid | November 29, 2007 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Alan Robinson : and his Strawman Argument..
You just take care of your personal morality isses and we will take care of ours.
AND since you are DENSE about Clinton's alleged perjury. Clinton DID not Commit Perjury.
Clinton was ACQUITTED..
DO you inderstand that word?
BUT Which illustrates by your own words you are trying to perpetrate a lie.
Which makes you a LIAR.
Plus you conveniently forgot about all the other False Charges that were made against him.
AND also were DROPPED.
Guess you feel that was fair too..??
You have a problem with reality
Mr. Robinson..take care of it...
YOUR Private Morality is showing!!
Posted by: Issa | November 29, 2007 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
You're incorrect.
Rather, in this country, he had a duty to tell the truth while under oath.
Do you know what being under oath means?
Posted by: OOOOhh I'm sorry | November 29, 2007 11:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Professor Dawkins may have a knack for simplifying complex concepts for popular audiences, but it certainly isn't clear to me that he has a knack for understanding even the simple concepts at issue in this discussion, so quickly does he want to bulldoze to his destination, i.e. banishing the green-eyed monster. The green-eyed monster is really a red herring in this example. Bill Clinton, while governor and president, committed acts that would get any supervisor in state or Federal employment fired. If he had been a GS-12 he'd have been out the door for his conduct with Monica alone. That's the way it works at my agency. His statements were also sworn testimony in a legal proceeding, and were plainly perjorious. Neither from the perspective of supervisory conduct in the workplace, nor from the perspective of legal testimony, does an ethical justification exist for lying about sexual activity. It's a silly, obvious evasion to make this case a discussion of privacy when these other issues are so plain. Professor Dawkins needs to back up and think through this case with some of the acuity he has brought to the theory of evolution.
Posted by: raskolnik | November 29, 2007 11:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So just what is the algortithm you propose in terms of acceptability of lying about "personal matters"?
Does your "safe pass" extend to perjury in front of a federal judge in a civil proceeding? Do it extend to excuse perjury that would preempt bar disciplinary action against a practicing attorney?
If the woman or women were raped and the tone of the serial encounter suggested the profile of a pedophile so long as the perpetrator in his mind could justify the enounter no matter how sociopathic is he entitled to lie public, in a civil proceeding, in front of a grand jury?
Like most views of the secular progressive it is seductive on its face but flaters when subject to the most basic of examinations.
Posted by: alan robinson | November 29, 2007 11:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When the TABLOIDs exploit the personal lives of the Rich and Famous. Thier market the Morally Challenged Gossip Majority eat it up.
AND yes Private Morality should be kept Private.
Bill Clinton had a right to hide it. Had nothing to do with Public Morality that Clinton was excellent with.
The Neocons implemented the attack on Bill Clinton to to mask the PUBLIC Issues they were planning. Such as constant false charges against bill Clinton, using the Courts to Decide a President, lying to the Public and Attacking a country without cause, massive debt and world standing, the incredible mis-management of our Government structures.
Which includes the attack on 9/11. Which I believe the Neocons planned a long time ago.
And anytime we ask the hard question the Neocons label it a Secret.
Well We the People paid for those secrets. We want to see them. Sooner or later the crap will be coming out.
There will be not be enough Charming TP to clean up the mess.
YET the NEOCON trained Morally Challenged Gossip Majority still have no clue. Just like Mitt Rommneys dismissal of Waterboarding..!
Posted by: Issa | November 29, 2007 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I now regret my reference to "free love" because I don't mean to imply that Dawkins is condoning it, only that it would be perceived that way -- "that way" being the 60's implication of a sexual free-for-all, with no commitments. I have no reason from what he's written to think Dawkins is condoning that.
Seems like at least part of what he's saying is that these days, with DNA testing, paternal responsibility can be determined scientifically, thus negating reliance on earlier social structures developed for the same purpose.
Posted by: E favorite | November 29, 2007 10:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Although I find myself in agreement with and an admirer of Mr. Dawkins on most occasions I've got to take exception to a couple of things in this article.
First, regardless of what you think about the wisdom of our policy of invading Iraq the idea that our President lied about the existence of WMDs in that country just doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. No one, not the UN nor anyone else knew for certain what the situation in Iraq was prier to our invasion. Anything else is just revisionist history. Lying implies awareness that you are lying as in “I did not have sex with that woman” granted, this lie should have been a private one. My heart went out to his wife and daughter. I’m sure it hurt them! Having said that, it should not have been a national event but apparently, inquiring minds just had to know.
Second, sexual jealousy can be a very corrosive emotion or a very appropriate one. I just don’t think it can be denied that sexual infidelity resonates with the offended party in ways that really cannot be described. If I, for instance, were to learn that my wife of 27 years was having an affair I’d be devastated. Don’t ask me why. I would not be able to describe it adequately. I would just feel that a promise made to me was broken by someone I trust more than anyone. This brings me to my last point.
Granted, we can have meaningful relationships with all kinds of people both men and women and love them for who they are. That does not mean we have to give ourselves permission to have sex with them. Being a moral person would suggest that you always consider the consequences of your actions on your loved ones and society as a whole. At the risk of coming off as a self righteous gas bag, you don’t have to succumb to every temptation just because it presents itself. On the other hand, people do succumb and we should treat them with forgiveness if they are asking, and I don’t mean “God’s” forgiveness. Frankly, it’s none of his business. I mean forgiveness from the offended party.
Mark vander Weert
Posted by: Mark vander Weert | November 29, 2007 10:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sin is not a meaningless word. You can greatly improve your vocabulary by understanding what sin is. The worde sin is a clue to the dark and grossly misunderstood history of religion as we know religion to be today.
Sins are crimes. Some crimes are sins but not all. Today some sins are crimes but not all. The key bitm of infrormation is that sins and crimes are the same category of things.
The difference between sins and crimes is the difference between kinds of governments. When God rules all infractions of law are sins. When man rules all infractions of law are crimes. Unless God is the ruler then there are no sins.
I'm sure you agree that God is nowhere to be found. Therefore there are no sins to be found either. What is to be found are people who claim they represent God, ministers ofm one kind or the other.
Ministers operate governments where they are the governor. Their authority to do so comes from God, (Who is nowhere to be found) by claiming they represent God. And, of course, God will be along any minute to enforce God's law being broken by everyone because, in the wors of Mr Bush, "we are all sinners."
Ministers come under the heading of, "can't do without" because, "we are all sinners." You can continue to believe that sin is a meaningless word or you can notice the size of the taxes collected in the name of God, tax free, tax deductible and at real property tax exempt facilities called churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and tabernacles, (Mitt Romney).
Unless a trillion dollars is meaningless the sin has great meaning. That's how much the Yanks send to his holiness the pope periodically, not to mention all the privateers, "so that sins can be forgiven."
Posted by: SM | November 29, 2007 10:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Some of this rings true, that is, who cares if some floozie gave him a Bjob? The whole polygamy, free love thing sounds good on paper, but the sexual jelousy thing can be a bigger problem than Dawkins alludes.
If I had to be reductionistic, than it is all about body control and control of mates. Animals have many variations of this, from lekking to herds to monogamous birds e.g. sexual selection. Polygamy would be another attempt to squire more fitness, as would preventing young women from seeking abortions (so perhaps the male antiabortionists would have greater reproductive success with that potential pool of mates if they share their religious convictions.) Consider Warren Jeffs. Was that society OK?
Posted by: dr.bill | November 29, 2007 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I suppose you are a good biologist;however on religious matters where are your degrees in Theology?Philosophy? Maybe you should stick to cells,bugs,flowers and plants. Who listens and who in the hell cares what a simple biogist says about anything except biology!!
Posted by: fcsanders | November 29, 2007 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sexual jealousy is as powerful as it is precisely because it is so impeded in our genes. 'Mommy's baby, daddy's maybe' is a potent behavioral motivator. Few of us are cognizant of the underlying genetic impetus of our conduct, let alone savvy enough to act on those realizations. It takes a great deal of effort to undermine or alter ones own human nature, energy perhaps better spent on deleterious circumstances having a more cultural bias with a better chance of a positive outcome. This is not to say we should not make every effort to attenuate our inappropriate impulses, sexual jealousy and promiscuity both, or judge less harshly those that do not, but to deny them entirely may in most cases prove futile.
Posted by: Ed Hengel | November 29, 2007 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Christian for Liberty: "Maybe you need to re-read that huge sanctimonious self-righteous book you wrote about how you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot."
I suggest you re-read the book yourself (assuming you have read it) and come back here with some direct quotes supporting your statements above.
Perhaps you don't realize how desperate such name-calling makes you look.
Posted by: E favorite | November 29, 2007 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Oh great. Dawkins making the argument of the slippery slope even true... you KNOW that 'they' are going to pounce on this and say "you SEE? You see what happens when you don't follow the word of GAWD? You start wanting 8 wives, and believe lying is good!"
Ridiculous. Clinton had no duty to lie. He perhaps had a duty to say "I will not answer ridiculous personal questions to the media, public or congress- not now, not ever."
Oh Richard, what have you been smoking?
Posted by: Eric Pound | November 29, 2007 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof. Dawkins, I usually agree with you, but I'm surprised you don't see the Darwinian reason a woman might be jealous of her mate sleeping with other people. If he has another woman on the side, he's most likely spending time and resources on the other woman, and the other woman's children, rather than the first woman and her children. It is to a woman's advantage to ensure that her mate is using his time and resources on their family only.
Posted by: Julia | November 29, 2007 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
you're going to freak everyone out w/ that end of that article. "slippery slope!" they'll yell. baby steps rich, baby steps.
Posted by: damnit dawkins... | November 29, 2007 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
you're going to freak everyone out w/ that end of that article. "slippery slope!" they'll yell. baby steps rich, baby steps.
Posted by: damnit dawkins... | November 29, 2007 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Dawkins' position on sexual mores are a honest extension of his naturalist macro-evolutionary groundings. The fact is, "marriage" as most define it (with a commitment to not seek others) is based in religion.
I personally am convinced a society run by Dawkins' recommendations on free love would be full of unhappy people and have great great difficulty raising its young. Maybe some country will try it soon, but Mr Dawkins will have to realize that 80% or more of the population of most every country I can thnk of will reject his notion.
Of course he will claim it's becasue we're all Deluded :)
Posted by: TomH | November 29, 2007 10:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton had a "positive duty" to lie about his private life? Hmm -- that seems to be a real stretch.
Posted by: Andy Gee | November 29, 2007 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"...would you wish to be governed by a man who has such a cock-eyed view of reality that he thinks the Garden of Eden was in Missouri...?"
Well, I think the probability that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri is about the same as that is was anywhere else, that is vanishingly small. Here I think you are appealing to people of a particular religious view, and generally encouraging people to discriminate among candidates on the basis of religion. The criterion should be whether the candidate is prone to make policy and act publicly according to some particular religious dictates, such as commands of the Pope or supposed direct messages from God, rather than in the best real-world interests of the public.
Posted by: skeptonomist | November 29, 2007 10:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Clinton had a "positive duty" to lie about his private life? Hmm -- that seems to be a real stretch for me.
Posted by: Andy Gee | November 29, 2007 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There seems to be on major error that many people forget about the Clinton event. A person brought a lawsuit against him for sexual abuse. He then gave testimony under oath. He got impeached because he lied while under oath to the grand jury. (The questions about other sexual encounters were relevant due to the nature of the lawsuit.) He did not get impeached because on national T.V. he said, "I did not have sex with that woman." While Richard Dawkins and others do not seem to take the marriage commitment seriously, testimony in a court of law should always be based on the truth.
Posted by: WLN | November 29, 2007 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Seldom, if ever, have I read an opinion piece of this length with such total agreement.Being neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm a bit shocked!
Being a Bible thumping, Church attending, believer myself, I wonder how Professor Dawkins came to these truths outside of some faith tradition, and/or prayerful intercession ......but like his sex life, that is none of my business.
Posted by: Bill Leland | November 29, 2007 10:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires"
Rich, dude, do you even hear yourself? Maybe you need to re-read that huge sanctimonious self-righteous book you wrote about how you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.
Science H. Logic man! By far the most preachy, obnoxious, and self-important a-holes I have ever met are Dawkins atheists. Richard my friend, your certitude of convictions and willingness to shove them down others' throats make Falwell look like a diversity counselor.
Posted by: Christian for liberty | November 29, 2007 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think love implies a connection, a feeling that you and your loved one are the same. Bringing a third person in, unless it's mutual, violates that sameness.
If you love someone, their pain is your pain. I can't believe that the physical gratification with another person would be less harmful than the resulting disconnect between a person and their loved one.
I also think though that jealousy has its purpose. My jealousy is a reminder to me that I feel deeply for someone. "Love knows not its own depths, until the hour of separation." Or in the case of jealousy, until the hour of possible separation.
Posted by: Peg | November 29, 2007 10:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I don't know, Dick, rooting for multiple partners sounds a little
Joseph Smithsonian to me.
Posted by: Bill (not Clinton) | November 29, 2007 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Jealousy is based in low self-esteem and insecurity. The "wounded" person (victim of infidelity) assumes they have less value than the additional lover.
A fidelity based in the physical sexual act likely will not survive.
A commitment one to the other that is tempered in "sickness and in health...til death do us part" implies a strength of character seemingly absent in the "It's all about me" society of the new millenium.
If any single action by one member of a couple challenges the fragile psyche of the other, the only alternative is vengeful divorce.
Fidelity is multi-dimensional and requires a resolve for it to serve as relationship "glue".
Posted by: H. Smith | November 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment
There are a number of practical arguments of evolutionary origin for marital fidelity - especially, it is dangerous for children when men other than the child's father have a non-transient sexual relationship with the mother. The probability of child abuse is vastly greater when a person who is not a biological parent stands in a quasi-parental relationship to the child. When it comes to welfare of children, societal sanction of a permanent bond of father with mother, and thus father with child, is obviously beneficial. (The relationship could be, and has been, polygynous rather than monogamous.)
Posted by: skeptonomist | November 29, 2007 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
It is unusual to see Professor Dawkins in logical peril. Whatever anyone may think of marriage vows, they are commitments. If preposterous private beliefs are evidence of the potential to compromise public responsibilities then surely so is a preposterous private record of honoring one’s commitments.
Posted by: Skeptikos | November 29, 2007 10:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment
So non-mammals shouldn't be allowed to have sex? Just kidding. I do agree that sex should only be allowed between consenting adults, and I, too, don't understand society's problems with polygamy.
Posted by: Anon | November 29, 2007 10:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Sex should only be allowed
if performed between consenting
mammals.
Posted by: Knowinso Jones | November 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Prof Dawkins - regarding Romney - look on the bright side -- he may be one of those many public figures who is lying about his religious faith and is actually an atheist. Unfortunately, in this culture, it's perceived as better to believe in some wacky supernatural story than none at all.
Regarding sex - you've really gone out on a limb there. I can hardly wait to see the responses here -- and the fall-out internationally - that God delusion guy now condoning free love.
Posted by: E favorite | November 29, 2007 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Dinky,
This was one of the most beautifully self-righteous posts I've ever read. Your religion seems to be notorious for condemning that sort of behaviour by living it out in theatrical bravado.
Merry Christmas, may this be the season of your salvation.
Canyon
Posted by: Canyon Shearer | November 29, 2007 9:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I have too, have always felt that our society offers people as property rather than as true individuals. Our relationships are simply another possession we buy and sell. I also agree that a public official's religious beliefs should not be discussed unless it directly affects their line of work. I don't like the idea that the law is going to be interpreted based on a 2000 year-old book about winged people who fly down from magical places to reign hellfire on the human race. I also don't like the idea of having to make a vote between two people who believe I deserve to suffer for eternity because I don't believe what they do. So someone who believes that humanity is a disease, and that God should destroy all of the unbelievers and banish them to eternal torture should be in charge of the Department of Health? Um...probably not.
Posted by: Luke | November 29, 2007 9:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
hello everybody! http://www.mixx.com/users/acotas ">california louis replica vuitton vzxv http://www.mixx.com/users/adahy ">cheap louis vuitton replica xbdbm