The Inherent Conflict Between Atheism and Feminism

by W.F. Price on September 24, 2012

Feminists have been going after Atheists for a while now due to a dearth of women in the ranks of non-believers. I think it’s kind of funny that they are blaming the men despite the fact that churches are now clearly majority female. The church gap is around the same as the college gap — about 60-40 favoring women. So, drawing from my recent post about cheating, it seems there’s a bit of a logic problem going on yet again.

Given that the male and female populations are roughly equal, and there are more female believers, doesn’t it then logically follow that there will be more male atheists?

Well, it can’t be that, because from a feminist perspective someone (always a man) is always at fault for any difference between the sexes. Therefore, in feminist logic, it must be because male skeptics are discriminating against women.

As far as whether believers or skeptics hold The Truth, I’m not going to get into that, because I personally don’t think we can ever know. While skeptics might argue that it isn’t fair to be asked to prove a negative, this isn’t a court of law, so I remain skeptical of skepticism, and generally of any dogma that asserts itself to have the absolute truth in theological matters.

However, I do think Atheism tends to be a more masculine mode of thought, because men do not have rationalization hamsters that are as powerful as women’s. Men are more apt to believe it when they see it, while women like to believe in socially approved stories, or “pretty lies” as Heartiste calls them (not to say they are necessarily lies, of course, but you get the idea).

However, there’s another issue here that is being ignored. Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.

Try asking someone to defend equality in rational terms, and watch them stump themselves. There is simply nothing about the idea that makes sense from a rational perspective. In fact, equal only makes sense in math, because no two things are truly the same. Although both are athletes, is a baseball player equal to a football player? Is a german shepherd equal to a poodle? These questions don’t really make any sense, because the idea of equality is a human creation to describe some quality that can’t actually be defined.

I’m convinced that the origin of the idea of equality lies in Christianity. Specifically, the Christian concept of spiritual equality:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:28

Further, Jesus even specifically alluded to gender equality when rebuking some Sadducees:

23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

27 And last of all the woman died also.

28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Mattew 22

It was really a brilliant innovation. As far as I know, it is the first time in the history of religion that anyone ever proposed the idea of spiritual equality for all of humanity.

Today, that idea, which is a religious belief just like Transubstantiation and the Trinity, has become THE article of faith of the “secular” progressive West. Without it, the liberal democratic worldview collapses immediately.

Atheism and skepticism may be considered a common feature of the enlightened secular progressive, but if we are to be honest, there’s an inherent conflict between skepticism and this concept of equality, because it is in fact a religious belief.

So when feminists demand that skeptics and Atheists pay homage to equality, they are demanding that they make an act of faith, and believe in something that can’t be proven. It would be akin to Catholics saying “you know, you can keep calling yourselves skeptics, but you’re going to have to make a statement confirming the resurrection of Jesus Christ or we’re going to start doing really unpleasant things to you.” Actually, the feminists take a it a step farther, in that they demand not only that skeptics “believe” in what they want them to, but also that they stack their ranks with at least as many believers as skeptics.

Here’s a true gender inquisitor at work, stating her reasons for her “atheism:”

I share Natalie’s distress at the recent discovery that the atheist/skeptic movement has a not-small and certainly loud subset of participants whose sexism is so strong that they’d rather run women out of the movement altogether rather than endure the indignity of treating women like people. For me, being an outspoken atheist has always been firmly intertwined with my feminism, and in fact, really it’s the result of my feminism. I never really believed in a god of any sort, but the notion that atheism is important and should be talked about openly is one I only really developed because it serves the larger goal of creating a world that has true gender equality. Atheist activism for me has always been about the long game, because I believe that undermining religion’s death grip on power is what needs to be done for women to be truly equal.

-Amanda Marcotte

I wonder whether Marcotte even realizes what an abuse of the entire concept of Atheism and skepticism this is… She “never really believed in a god,” but she is on a mission to create “true gender equality” — a religious calling if I’ve ever seen one.

Amanda’s screed also demonstrates why guys like PZ Myers – a feminist Atheist – are really fake skeptics. Like Amanda, PZ actually just hates Christian conservatives, but he holds beliefs that are every bit as irrational as theirs.

So, although I doubt feminists’ ability to ever comprehend the implications, the very demands they place on Atheists and skeptics contradict their stated lack of faith. It’s another one of those contradictions that have come to define the guiding philosophy of Western secular liberalism.

{ 46 comments… read them below or add one }

Rebel September 24, 2012 at 12:28

I have come to realize to feminists will complain about everything AND its opposite. How on earth could we ever consider what they say?
This is hogwash, pure and simple.
Next, they will complain about complaining. It goes on and on until hell freezes over.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Little John September 24, 2012 at 12:55

Truly, there is no logic to feminism. Feminists go on and on about how awful we males are in every respect. But they also seem to believe that women have no real worth or value, except to the extent that they can act like males, often imitating some of our very worst traits. It’s absolutely insane!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Huck Finn September 24, 2012 at 13:19

I think there is a god, mostly.

Women and some feminists too are now finding out that the old ‘patriarchal’ society in America wasn’t so bad after all with how women had it. Women claimed to want equality, careers, and financial independence from men so they could be self-sufficient. Now, they’re finding out a lifetime pursuing a career isn’t often so wonderful for their happiness and stress level. Women started self-actualizing decades ago. Now that men are starting to do it too women are finding that movement by men isn’t in their best interest.

Many American religious institutions have liberalized with the women making up most attendees and women are not happy with that new outcome too. Traditional teachings for male role behavior drew upon religion ie get married, be a responsible father, show respect to women, provide and protect, be a gentleman, until death do you part, etc. Now, with those feminist criticized “male created patriarchal misogynistic religions to oppress women” having been sidelined or marginalized women and feminists are increasingly appreciative of those religious organizations. If there isn’t a god to fear and a religion to practice then why should men adhere to morals, ethics, and values ie codes and a lifestyle that do not primarily serve the individual man?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The First Joe September 24, 2012 at 13:22

The whole feminists hating on atheists thing dates back to… “Elevatorgate”.

In a nutshell, some woman athiest had a proper misandrist freak-out online, because some man atheist in a lift with her, late (as in wee small hours) after in a hotel post-atheist conference dared to… *gasp* ask her if she’d like to “continue the chat in his room over coffee.”

She said no, he accepted gracefully, i.e. NOTHING HAPPENED! NOTHING AT ALL!! Except… oh, she felt… “uncomfortable”… OH THE HORROR!! A WEALTHY WHITE WESTERN WOMAN FELT UNCOMFORTABLE FOR TWO MINUTES!! STOP THE WORLD!! QUICK! EVERYONE PAY ATTENTION TO HER FEE-FEEES!!

…Instead of moving the fuck on, said atheist woman chose to seize the chance to rise from the status of hanger-on / nonentity by blahblahblahing in the interwebs about the horrors of a man approaching you in a lift where she was unable to flee! flee! the horrid man (who according to feminist dogma, MUST be an eeeeevil rapist of course). Basically, androphobia and creep-shaming, plus “payattentiontomeee!!! I’mavictimoftehevilmenz!!!”.

She and lots of other feminists seized the opportunity to lecture all men everywhere about what /when / how men should / shouldn’t approach women in order to keep women feeling comfortable i.e. yet more androphobia.
A lot of this lecturing was along the lines of “how would you feel if half the people around you were bigger and stronger than you!” Which ignores the fact that for the average guy about one quarter of the people around him ARE in fact bigger and stronger than him, and more importantly the fact that average guy is 3 times more likely to be violently attacked, up to and including getting murdered, than the average woman. (Of course, when feminists discuss violence only violence against women has any significance).

Then a bunch of atheists including Richard Dawkins basically went “Shut the fuck up, what the fuck is wrong with you, nothing happened, you were never in danger, get the fuck over it already.” At which point the femosphere EXPLODED with androphobia.

And then there was an internet backlash, so now the atheist woman gets some really quite nasty misogynist emails from internet trolls. (As does pretty much anyone who tries to make a big noise of themselves on the interwebz by acting all victimized over nothing at all).

You’ll note I’ve not named the atheist woman in question, because I
have zero wish to assist her mission to turn her self-annointed “victim”-status into a career. She’s actually making and selling themed T-shirts now, I shit you not.

I’m an atheist. The first question I have is – Why the fuck bother going to a conference in the first place? What are you going to talk about?
‘You believe in god?’
‘Fuck no. You?’
‘Nah.’
‘…. So, how about that weather, huh?’
Although as I understand it, US atheists get a load of shit about being atheist in many parts of the US. Whereas over here, no-one gives a fuck. Apart from all those Mormons we have “missioning” round here, wtf??

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Opus September 24, 2012 at 13:37

You can see why some Christians (understandably) suggest that Atheism (note the capital A) is a belief system – for that is clearly how Marcotte sees it. As atheism (small a) is merely a lack of a belief in any God or gods – whether through reasoning or simple ignorance or even lack of interest – I wish to dissociate myself from Marcotte or any of the other Atheists (capital A). I’m not any kind of Theist.

May I recommend John Gray (Enlightenment’s Wake, Black Mass) who – although I am not at one with everything he writes – is very good on the religious nature of Atheism (capital A).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The First Joe September 24, 2012 at 13:44

This chap demolishes the whole furore with clear logical argument:

http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/atheism-has-nothing-to-do-with-feminism.html
In a nutshell: “Not believing in god does not infer or imply any other belief or lack of.”

See also:

http://www.justinvacula.com/2012/08/surlyamy.html
In a nutshell: “Demanding other people shut up because you are offended is counter to free speech, free thought and logical argument, because it puts your personal, subjective feelings above those things.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Cassidy September 24, 2012 at 14:18

The idea of “equality” has become mainstream largely in part to this country becoming a country which makes decisions based on emotions, rather than logic. This is what you get when a country becomes a woman’s country. Every question or statement is responded to in an emotional manner, and people, usually women, take everything as a personal attack against them. Thinking with your heart, instead of your head, will get you into a lot of trouble.

In our current society, it is considered more honorable to lie so people don’t get their feelings hurt, rather than tell the truth without making sure everyone still feels special. Feminists and their mangina/white knight minions are notorious for responding to every criticism of feminism and their precious “equality” by using personal attacks and emotional responses. Whenever you call them out, they usually say “that isn’t fair” or “stop being so mean” or some other type of nonsensical response which doesn’t even make any valid points.

It should be obvious the emperor has no clothes, but I don’t think most people really care about being honest. There are a lot of people, mostly women, who live most of their lives in make-believe worlds where lies sort of become truths if you just pretend hard enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay September 24, 2012 at 15:20

I remain skeptical of skepticism, and generally of any dogma that asserts itself to have the absolute truth in theological matters.

Like Christianity?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster September 24, 2012 at 15:37

If Feminists want true equality they should start by no longer complaining about it. Nothing differentiates them more than their incessant whining about equality.

Men are not preventing equality, whether they be secular or not. It’s other women, behaving as women do, that prevents women from being viewed as equal. The most famous women today are famous for doing nothing, like Kim Kardashian. They should be directing their ire towards these celebrity/entertainer types and the young women who idolize them. Or everytime the Feminist news media starts yapping about a first lady’s dress or style.

Women are hyper-vigilant when it comes to sexism because they do it so well to themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Willers September 24, 2012 at 15:38

Off topic perhaps, but what is it with women and male space. They have to get their grubby hands involved in every little place. And theres usually misogyny in there somewhere. I understand now why my fathers generation and older were uncomfortable with women being in the darts league or the pool league. Women have never wanted to be treated as equals they’ve always wanted preferential treatment. 1 woman enters the league, out goes the swearing etc a long list of things that “offend” her delicate sensibilites. You can bash the old school chivalristic society, fair enough, but now dont expect me to stop saying cunt just cos it makes you go wee wee. Fit in or fuck off thats my motto.

Any chance you adapt to us love?? Oh no, dont work like that. The decent men in that world just shut up, whats point of arguing, better off letting them moan off about stuff. And the pussification process kicks into gear.

I aint a decent man though hahahaha, if the fat girl in the corner needs help, thats the time to get the next round in ;)

Im an official drop out, I bow my head and offer admiration to those who have the game and dont choose the easy way. Still im in front of all the pussy whipped fuckas out there ill take what i got before them saps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 24, 2012 at 15:47

Like Christianity?

-AV

Well, yeah, I wasn’t beating around the bush I don’t think.

keyster September 24, 2012 at 15:47

The idea of “equality” has become mainstream largely in part to this country becoming a country which makes decisions based on emotions, rather than logic. This is what you get when a country becomes a woman’s country. Every question or statement is responded to in an emotional manner, and people, usually women, take everything as a personal attack against them. Thinking with your heart, instead of your head, will get you into a lot of trouble.

The concept of Equality is derived from cultural Marxism, which is derived from Plato’s “The Republic”. Today we call it “Social Justice”. Every “Special Identifiable Group” as managed to seize the Civil Rights Movement from the only group that actually earned the right to it; American Black and his experience.

Most recently it was Gays, but now Muslims are charging to the fore. Yes that’s right, mocking Mohammed violates the American Muslim’s civil rights.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 24, 2012 at 17:48

Feminism takes the notion of spiritual equality and expands it in all directions: physical, mental, you name it. One of the fundamental premises of feminism is that men and women are exactly the same except women can have babies. That notion lies behind all sorts of bad ideas.

Another fundamental premise: gender is a social construct. This flows from the blank slate nonsense of Rousseau and his followers right down to the present day. But radical feminism is pro-lesbian, and the standard premise of lesbian feminists can be summed up by Gaga in Born This Way. So gender is a social construct, but same-sex attraction is inborn. Cognitive dissonance, much?

I think the reason churches are increasingly female is pretty obvious: women are more social than men and are attracted to social clubs. Plus churches are the best place for a worn-out party girl to find a beta schlub who will wife her up, at least for a few years until she can divorce him for cash and prizes.

Atheist groups are not nearly as wide spread, or as socially oriented, as churches are. And atheist men are probably not as likely to regard a carousel rider with herpes as a great gift; that skepticism isn’t just employed on philosophical topics.

Marcotte is missing a bet. She’d find plenty of pedestalizing, supplicating, Manbooby types willing to do anything for a whiff of that Petri dish between her legs, if she just strolled into the nearest feminized church. And all she has to do is show up and mouth a few words every Sunday, too, no behavior change is necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Russell September 24, 2012 at 18:43

Rebel: “I have come to realize to feminists will complain about everything AND its opposite. How on earth could we ever consider what they say?
This is hogwash, pure and simple.
Next, they will complain about complaining. It goes on and on until hell freezes over.”

They already do Rebel. For example: They endless obsess and complain about their petty concerns like appearance. Then they complain about the pressure on women and complain about complaining about their petty issues. But at least they know who to blame….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mark Plus September 24, 2012 at 19:55

This latest “scandal” goes back last year to Rebecca Watson’s repudiation of a beta male’s invitation to his hotel room for coffee at an atheist conference in Ireland, as I recall. Now these Skepchicks, Godless Bitches and similar female atheists call for sexual harassment policies to beat up on the beta males who have the temerity to go soliciting for girlfriends among their ranks.

I just have to laugh at the cliché-reversal here. We’ve heard since like forever from christian authority figures that atheists engage in swinging sexual promiscuity as a consequence of their alienation from god, yet it turns out that organized atheism attracts a lot of beta males whom atheist women find too sexually yucky to hook up with at their own social events. I can just imagine how many young guys in christian homes took this christian propaganda about atheists’ sex lives at face value, but interpreted it as a selling point FOR becoming atheists. Imagine their surprise and disappointment when they discover that their pastors and Sunday school teachers lied to them about the easiness of godless women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Sun September 24, 2012 at 20:37

A true Evolutionist (which you would find me as) is not egalitarian.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun September 24, 2012 at 20:41

@ keyster

“The concept of Equality is derived from cultural Marxism, which is derived from Plato’s “The Republic”. Today we call it “Social Justice”. Every “Special Identifiable Group” as managed to seize the Civil Rights Movement from the only group that actually earned the right to it; American Black and his experience.”

You are sorely mistaken.

The concept of Equality was around before Marx was even alive.

Egalitarianism started during the 1700s with philosophers like Locke and Rousseau.

Marx expanded upon the concepts, nothing more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 24, 2012 at 20:47

I have been watching this whole mess for awhile now and I have constantly had a smile on my face.

It is really interesting to observe. It is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. These feminists, with their hysterical demands, are trying to destroy the atheist/skeptic movement because they failed to take it over or appropriate its success for their own ends. They failed their co-opt attempt because they were dealing with atheists who kept questioning their propositions and dissecting their arguments instead of nodding their heads like good little manginas while the femmies spoke.

Lolz.

No matter where you fall in the religious debate, you should take a clear look at this because you will see how feminists act and what tactics they use. In fact, they have attempted to use the very same tactics against the MRM while trying to appropriate and colonize the mens movement.

OT.

Have you seen Jills, from feministe, new article?

The Moral Case for Sex Before Marriage
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/24/moral-case-for-sex-before-marriage#start-of-comments

I honestly don’t know why she wrote it? Maybe I missed something but I haven’t seen much of any debate about sex before marriage in the center stage. I will say that I am constantly surprised that this woman has a law degree. She doesn’t back up any of her claims in the article with facts, she fails to disclose the few “facts” she uses with sources, and even more I don’t think I saw a logical or sound argument in the entire article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Troll King September 24, 2012 at 20:52

OT.

I think there is one element of hypergamy or “social ladder climbing” as I would put it before I knew the term hypergamy, that we rarely mention in the MRM.

Hypergamy is a natural state of existence for women. I think it comes about through evolutionary forces and is maintained due to women’s weaker nature with respect to the physical world. So women are dependent on men in some form and they compete against each other, while selecting against lower status men, for the best men.

So, let’s take a look at female-female competition and have a big ole laugh about it. Cause I sure was grinning while reading this piece. Isn’t it hilarious how women used to be able to only compete against each on in trivial matters, but now that they have transformed themselves in pseudo-men they have to compete against each other in their natural domains and also in the sphere of men. Lulz.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/i-am-tired-of-competing-with-other-women/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Old Guy September 24, 2012 at 21:51

My take is, the Feminists are not blending well with actual Atheists because they aren’t really Atheists. Feminists are Socialists, which is a political religion. They claim to be Atheists, but really they are just against every religion other than their own.

Real Atheists are mostly interested in stuff like the Big Bang, Evolution, and Abiogenisis., and of course their favorite hobby, arguing with Creationists. Many of their discussions use big words and deal with science and other guy stuff that Feminists are ill equipped to participate in. They really want to get around to the more important issues, like why they have to put up with all these men on “their” Atheism forum, and discussions of how denying the existence of God shortchanges Goddesses and demonstrates the phalocentric bias of Atheism. I mean, where do those men get off assuming that the God they deny exists has a penis.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader September 24, 2012 at 21:56

Troll King
No matter where you fall in the religious debate, you should take a clear look at this because you will see how feminists act and what tactics they use. In fact, they have attempted to use the very same tactics against the MRM while trying to appropriate and colonize the mens movement.

Jackhammer to the premises, that’s the only way to deal with feminists, or feminism (note the difference). Not caring whether they like you or not just generates the ‘gina tingles, too. That is one of the weaknesses of the feminized churches; because they’ve confused niceness with goodness, they can’t refuse any slut, no matter how slutty she is. They have to take her in, even when she’s obviously lying about pretty much everything. So churches get colonized by “born again” sluts, who proceed to roll out the feminine imperative almost immediately. The funny thing is, there’s no justification for this blanket, feel-good hogwash in the Bible so far as I can tell. But the beta men who run most churches are too busy being “nice” to pay attention.

That article from thoughtcatalog is pure amusement. She’s worried about competing with other wimmenz in the looks department? Must be in her mid 20′s. Let’s see what she says in 5 year, har. And apparently she’s some sort of scribbler. Well, there’s a novel idea, a woman with a Room Of Her Own to write in, how unique. How bleeding useless.

Over at Alpha Game there’s a discussion of women’s solipsism going on. The article by the writer would be another exhibit demonstrating the concept.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself September 24, 2012 at 23:01

“Well, it can’t be that, because from a feminist perspective someone (always a man) is always at fault for any difference between the sexes.”

Ok, feminazis, I guess it’s boys’ fault for showing more interest in geography and boys’ fault for smoking girls in the NGB competition. Apparently, it is also boys’ fault for showing less passion for (insert supermajority-female interest here).

Apparently, it is also boys’ fault that most female school faculty are sexist cunts and most male school faculty are pretty much all manginas. I did not know that boys controlled their schools’ faculties’ behavior.

As for feminazis’ whining about equality, Keyster, the best angle to attack feminism and egalitarianism is that both movements are inversely correlated with liberty. Just as any battle that equality wins is a battle that liberty loses, any battle that feminazism wins is a battle that liberty loses. Feminists hate liberty, especially male liberty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lavazza September 24, 2012 at 23:59

Everything would be easier if women knew their type and stated it, so that other men would not bother. But that would mean women giving up part of the attention/opportunities. If she has publicly stated her type it will be more difficult for her to widen her type, when her type is not interested in her.

Women prefer to be called bitch for saying no to men whom she has not informed of her type. To be called mean when they are stringing men along withour really saying yes or no. And to be called slut when they seem to say yes to all men but you.

A woman publicly stating her type would avoid these problems, still she doesn’t. Wonder why?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus September 25, 2012 at 01:24

Enlightenment concepts are merely Christianity with God and Priests thrown out – so I appreciate Welmer tracing it back to Matthew. I suspect that is a better fit than Plato, as I presume Plato would have excluded Women, Slaves, and Metics from his Republic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mats September 25, 2012 at 01:31

Atheism is the rejection of religious fictions, but the entire premise of feminism is based on a religious fiction: equality.

It’s kind of funny you say that, specially when we know that Judaism and Christian are heavily patriarchal systems. Go figure.

“But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression,” (1 Tim. 2:12-14

What about the verse you cited?

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” (Gal. 3:28).

This verse is often used to support the idea that women can hold the offices of elder and pastor because there is neither male nor female in Christ [equality]. The argument states that if we are all equal, then women can be pastors.

Unfortunately, those who use this verse this way have failed to read the context. Verse 23 talks about being under the Law “before faith came” and how we are brought closer to Jesus and have become sons of God by faith. We are no longer under law, but grace and we are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise,” (v. 29).2 The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God’s grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn’t matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mats September 25, 2012 at 01:34

Christianity doesn’t teach equality, as you seem to sugest: Christianity teaches patriarchy and complementary roles – which exacly the opposite of feminism..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti September 25, 2012 at 03:17

“but she is on a mission to create “true gender equality””

As you identified, equalitarianism has its roots in Natural Law, which is a product of Scholasticism, which is itself uniquely of Christianity.

Without this basis, equalitarianism collapses, as men and women are objectively, mathematically unequal. There is no rational, objective basis for equality between individual humans without the religious claim to fundamental human equality in the eyes of God.

Thus it is ironic that feminists and equalitarianism hates Christianity so. Kindof like hating the great-grandparent who left you a huge landed estate in the Old Country, a landed estate which the equalitarian resents while hosting a century-long bohemian love-fest on the front lawn.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray September 25, 2012 at 03:56

Both modern religion and feminism have this notion that you should get free stuff just for being you. Note I say modern religion – old-time christianity was not about that at all.

Atheism/skepticism is a rejection of the notion that the universe owes you free shit. It’s a repudiation of “The Secret”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Darryl X September 25, 2012 at 04:46

Intriguing analysis, Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird September 25, 2012 at 05:17

The article appears to hinge upon the following quote as an argument for ‘gender equality.’ This is not quite true on the face of it and will explain why.
” Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”

The author has made the same mistake as the Sadducees above.

What this scripture refers to is the loss of the physical body,and the transformation into the spiritual body.

Can people be equally dead?
I say yes,they can.
Does the scripture say we are equal in spirit?
No, it has several levels in a caste system,jewels upon the crown,ect.

The cause for marriage is sex and procreation,of course a dead human body is not going to be engaging in that activity,the spirit form has no body,so it’s not doing that either.
That is not to say it constitutes equality by any means.
There is the election (very few) the masses in purgatory waiting upon judgement to be assigned to heaven of hell,based upon multiple criteria.
————————————
Troll King is right,it is an attempt to colonize another space in search of more power for any vagina holder.
This does not square with atheists nor any of the major religions.

Amanda seeks to place the vagina as sole god on this earth.
The next logical argument would be that traffic laws do not apply to women as it’s patriarchal and enforced by men.

She seeks to dissolve any civilizing bonds (the cause for religion) and promote the individual woman above societies best interests.
She does not promote the individual man above societies best interest.

That is what makes her a sexist anarchist.

This is the root of the matter,not the influences of the church or other civilizing institutions.

Even if one does not believe in God,they should understand and respect the civilizing influences of religion,simply because they teach that rule of law proceeds individual liberties.

If she seeks to throw off all civilizing influences,she must also rail against all of them,including secular law.
She will not do that because:
1.She is a lying hypocrite.
2.Secular law puts women first.
Altho Amanda would like a *more* of a Police State were men are not only presumed guilty,but executed upon allegation from the Goddess vagina holder.

She is the locust eating the green leaves of society, not just the tops that can be re-grown,but also the roots to destroy the field.

What she fails to understand is that once the roots are gone,so is her food supply.She does not care,just gluts all she can each day in the mindless pursuit of unjust society destroying power.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird September 25, 2012 at 05:30

Which is why I refer to feminism as a death-cult.
It destroys the family and society.
The logical progression of the female supremacists argument is the same ‘final solution’ that Hitler had for the jews.
(except for men)

In this cause they colonize and subvert those institutions that perpetuate civilized society,so they have a free hand to exsersize that totalitarianism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird September 25, 2012 at 05:43

Regarding equality under religious law:
All major religions recognize the differences between the sexes and write their laws according to natural law.
They are a reflection of true human nature and biology.
This does not square with fem supremacists as they insist sex is a social construct.It is not.
Hence all the EFFORT being induced into the religious sector to subvert it to the satanic death-cult of Hegelian
dialectics.

They absolutely will rail against natural law all day,and attempt to talk it into the ground.
That always fails as human nature remains the same.
“Nothing new under the sun”

There have always been contentious women,the church served well to hamper their society destroying efforts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
freebird September 25, 2012 at 05:51

Take for instance the recent discussion about the ACLU removing the father-daughter dance from a local high school.

None addressed the concept that a man has the RIGHT to his family as his own flesh and blood.
Yet they assert that women do have that right.
The State recognizes that once inherent human rights are removed from one sex,it can be removed from both sexes.
If a man has no ownerships of his own flesh and blood offspring,does he have a right to ownership of his own body?

The anti-law supremacists say “no.”

Yet they assert women DO have this right.Hypocrites!
When the State begins to remove the children from women as they have for men,they will lament that hypocrisy.
(if they are able to think past their vaginas,a questionable idea)

God says a man (and a woman) has a RIGHT to their own flesh and blood.

Hence feminism is again portrayed as an anti-human anti secular law anti-God death-cult.
They are the rotten apple corrupting the entire barrel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel September 25, 2012 at 06:34

I am basically an agnostic. I don’t knw if there is “something out there”, although I keep on questioning. Honestly, I don’t understand why people make so much fuss about being atheist or not and most of all if there are more female than male athesists.
That’s splitting hairs in four. Haven’t they got anything more interesting on their minds?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 25, 2012 at 11:07

The point of this passage is that we are all saved by God’s grace according to the promise of God and that it doesn’t matter who you are, Jew, Greek, slave, free, male, or female. All are saved the same way, by grace. In that, there is neither male nor female.

-Mats

Yes, I know. The Christians were being far more realistic than contemporary feminists, because they knew that in the temporal world this equality did not exist. They said it was after death that true equality came about, which makes a lot more sense when you think about it.

Those who think we can achieve “equality” in this world are dangerously stupid.

Huck Finn September 25, 2012 at 11:32

Prior to this post I was under the impression that feminism, which Angry Harry defined as a ‘Marxist-Lesbian’ ideology, would have been in support of atheism. It seems to me that atheism’s ideology challenges and weakens the traditional ‘patriarchal’ founded religious institutions and thus the theoretical values of individual rights and liberties that Western Governments are supposed to be based on which feminists are against unless the person is a feminist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken September 25, 2012 at 11:46

So would the corollary be : those who think we can achieve “justice” in this world are dangerously stupid?

If that is the case we are really spinning our wheels here, to put it mildly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price September 25, 2012 at 12:04

So would the corollary be : those who think we can achieve “justice” in this world are dangerously stupid?

If that is the case we are really spinning our wheels here, to put it mildly.

-meistergedanken

I think Jack Donovan would argue exactly that.

When it comes down to it, we can only do as much as we can, which is a lot more than most of us actually do. So there’s a whole lot of room for improvement, whether we can achieve absolute “justice” or “equality” or not.

The thing is, these ideas are tools. They motivate people, so they are useful whether or not they are true. But I think it’s important to point out that feminists and assorted other progressives are every bit as irrational as people who believe in Creationism.

For us, the real question should be “which belief system is most beneficial to us in the long run?” Amanda Marcotte quite instinctively grasps that for women like her, Atheism is beneficial, because it’s a tool she can use to wage war on Christian conservatives in order to promote her own irrational belief system. But Atheism only benefits feminists if atheists adopt these feminist articles of faith, and therein lies the conflict between feminists and atheists today.

Tom936 September 25, 2012 at 13:06

The First Joe September 24, 2012 at 13:22

I like your summary of Elevatorgate.

And then there was an internet backlash, so now the atheist woman gets some really quite nasty misogynist emails from internet trolls.

That’s what she says. I’m skeptical of her version. First, she’s unable to distinguish between the most deliberately provocative trolling and normal communication. If I remember correctly, she posted this to 4chan and then acted shocked at the response. That’s stupid or dishonest.

My guess is that she actually got half a dozen obvious trolls jeering that she was too ugly to rape, which she eagerly reported as a hundred otherwise normal emails saying that she ought to be raped or was too ugly to rape.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 September 25, 2012 at 13:12

Opus September 24, 2012 at 13:37
You can see why some Christians (understandably) suggest that Atheism (note the capital A) is a belief system for that is clearly how Marcotte sees it.

Yes. As an atheist myself, I’ve found to my dismay that many of my fellow atheists lean heavily Liberal. They don’t apply the same skepticism to Feminism and the rest of the Left. But there are also many who do.

As atheism (small a) is merely a lack of a belief in any God or gods whether through reasoning or simple ignorance or even lack of interest I wish to dissociate myself from Marcotte or any of the other Atheists (capital A). I m not any kind of Theist.

I share the same sentiments.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 25, 2012 at 23:39

@Cassidy

“In our current society, it is considered more honorable to lie so people don’t get their feelings hurt, rather than tell the truth without making sure everyone still feels special.”

You certainly nailed that one. I find this SO frustrating. I think that we, as men, need to stand up and be men. No, not “man up” in some shaming language to make you a slave to a woman.
Rather, accept that as men we are to be leaders. Women seem to value consensus, or “group-think” as some say.
Men are to be bold and courageous, speaking the truth in love. (e.g. It might be true to say you are a complete idiot at math, but it might be more constructive to simply say that you are not adequately skilled in math to be a rocket scientist, so let’s talk about what other careers for which you would be better suited.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 25, 2012 at 23:48

From W.F. Price:
>But I think it’s important to point out that feminists and assorted other progressives are every bit as irrational as people who believe in Creationism.

:) Yes, this is perhaps a bit off-topic, but I think your statement is at least party fair/correct and it deserves a response.

In any group, whether feminists, Nazis, or people who follow the Bible, there will be divergent views within it. As such, we should expect to see a wide variety of views, even from just the group of “the creationists”.
Yes, it is fair to label some “creationist” theories/ideas as irrational. One irrational Canadian does not prove all Canadians to be irrational. Same for Christians.

I will come to the point in a minute, but first a crash-course in literature forms. “Narrative prose” is a literature form giving a straight-forward description of actual history, in straight-forward language; think of anyone retelling the events of their day, describing how their best friend fell into the river, or a witness on the witness stand in court. Much of the Bible is in this form, and the interpretation of those parts is pretty obvious and easy.

The Bible also has examples of other literary forms. There is at least a little poetry in almost all of the 66 books in the Bible. Hebrew poetry has a few standard forms and formation rules. These structured forms are obviously not narrative prose, and it should be no surprise that Hebrew poetry is interpreted differently than the story of what happened to you on the way to the grocery store.

There are also some sections written in “apocalyptic” form, which uses a high degree of imagery–these parts are not always obvious and easy to interpret. (In fact some are downright cryptic. Or maybe that’s just for me… :) ) Examples of this form are in Daniel chapters 7 to 12. In fact, Daniel chapter 7, which will take you about 5 minutes to read at BibleGateway.com, gives both an example of this literary form, and the correct interpretation for it, thus making it clear that this literary form is NOT to be interpreted as if it is narrative prose (straight-forward language / history).
The important idea here: If I taught an apocalyptic section as if it were straight-forward narrative prose, this would lead to some pretty stupid teachings, and lead many observers to conclude I am irrational. Similarly, one parable (which is a literary form similar to a metaphor) in Luke would appear to teach that stealing from your boss is a good thing… which is obviously contrary to other Biblical teaching. (And no, that is not the correct interpretation.)

So what…? The text of Genesis chapter one is obviously in a very structured literary form. I need only a grade 5 reading comprehension level to catch it :) Genesis 1 is not narrative prose. It repeats the exact same phrase six times, refuses to name the sun and moon, instead referring to them obliquely, has a parellel structure (day 1 to 3 talk of forming light, sky, sea then land, and day 4 to 6 talk of filling light, sky, sea then land), etc.
The point? Anyone who teaches that Genesis 1 should be interpreted as narrative prose will be applying the wrong literary rules of interpretation. As such, they will be coming up with some pretty wacky ideas, such as insisting Genesis 1 requires me to believe that the earth took only six physical days to completely set up shop. Is this unfortunate? Absolutely. Is it embarrassing? Umm, well yeah, unfortunately. But I would encourage you not to throw out the whole thing, because of a few wacky ideas that come from treating Genesis 1 as narrative prose, which it obviously is not.

Does it make sense to think the matter of the universe magically appeared, without someone a whole lot bigger than you starting the whole process? Obviously not. That would violate science — does “conversation of matter / energy” ring any bells? You do not get something from nothing, unless you have a power greater than the laws of science.

God gives you free will to think for yourself. I encourage you to do so :) As for me, I believe that something complex, that actually works, results from an intelligent agent, not from random chance. I believe that because of logic. If you believe that the galaxy, or your brain, came about by random chance, then I encourage you to program your computer to randomly type and delete letters in a Word document. With the speed of today’s computers, you should have randomly-generated a best-selling novel in no time. Feel free to send me some royalties hah hah hah.

Feel free to send me flames or questions… :) dale.v99 /@/ foxcustomsoftware.com

Dale

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 26, 2012 at 09:56

Opus: Heartily second your John Gray recommendation; I always think of his ‘Black Mass’ when this subject comes up.

He also makes a point, that I’ve always found to be true, in the intro to the paperback edition of his ‘Straw Dogs’ masterpiece: Since Christianity has been pushed so far out of the mainstream of ‘humanist’ ‘thought’, what you tend to find now is that the ‘humanist free-thinkers’ are bozo interchangeable drones, but the ‘brain-washed dinosaur’ Christians are more likely, now, to be saying more-critical, and individualistic, stuff worth hearing.

Dale: I’d be up for reading the Bible again [though I'm on extremely bad terms with the ol' Judeo-Christian Bearded Chap, if there is one*] but I find it highly dissatisfying, for the reasons you’ve gone into above. I’ve found translated texts not worth bothering with, unless translated by someone highly knowledgeable who lives and breathes the subject.

You need the translator’s notes to explain things like historical context, what certain phrases actually meant to those using them, to explain that certain words have no direct English equivalent, different prose styles, the numerics in Hebrew etc.

Can you recommend such a Bible (or Bible/Expository text combo), for one who’ll read it in deep and scholarly fashion (with a hair-trigger BS detector)? Been looking, and asking, for a while but keep being told, “Let the Holy Spirit be your translator!” grrrr.

*As in many things, the Ancient Greeks seemed to have it more (empirically IME) right than others. The tale of Cassandra has more truth than anything I ever found in the Bible – except Job, maybe….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Diogenes' Lamp September 26, 2012 at 12:46

Opus touched upon this, and GWW pretty much nailed it in her vid ‘Atheism, you asked for it….’:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUPxRYWpglQ&feature=plcp

When it went from:-

atheism: ‘I don’t believe in gods: I make no further claims regarding this’;

to

Atheism: ‘It is the Truth that there are no gods (particularly the Christian one); everyone must also accept this Truth, in order to build a ‘secular/humanist Utopia’;

then Atheism and Feminism became more alike than different.

Further, ‘The God Delusion’ read almost exactly like a Feminist text:-

1 See everything through a special-interest single lens – this being the source of all evil: Belief in the supernatural = patriarchy;

1a Refuse to see the actual, deeper problem: It is being led with uncritical belief in anything (Religion, Science, Racial/Gender Supremacy, Mao’s Revolution etc) that is the human problem;

1b At all costs, ensure that you miss the obvious fact that you’ve fallen into the same trap as those great evil ones that you criticise (and ensure that there’s plenty of projection) – but you merely wear a different label: Dawkins is more preachy and intolerant than most Christians I’ve known (in the UK); Feminists are more gender-chauvinistic and totalitarian than men tend to be;

1c Mistake symptoms for causes, then unjustifyably universalise from specifics: Female circumcision is religion rather than tradition; The Troubles are a religious conflict rather than national/cultural/turf sovereignty, colonial conflict; the Communist horrors, the likes of which the world had never known, were not atheist at all… because Stalin was a pastor’s son – WTF!!?; Feminists make law-like generalisations about all men/civilisation based upon apex fallacy and a tiny minority of men who are actual rapists or nobheads;

1d Both are the One True Path to Utopia: Atheism or Feminism;

2 Chronic victimhood: Atheists/womyn are harshly discriminated against… when it’s pointed out that the exact opposite is in fact correct (especially in the UK – where Dawkins is from – where atheism’s concerned) then the plight suddenly shifts to encompass historical/developing world situations, ideally without mentioning that this (mostly irrelevant to the initial claim/argument) universalisation switcheroo has taken place;

3 Being a purveyor of Truth means that you’re above logical coherence: Dawkins notices and pours scorn upon Christian infinite regress (‘Who made God?’), but doesn’t have a problem with using an almost identical infinite regress himself (‘If we were created, then it was by highly-evolved natural beings, themselves created by highly-evolved natural beings, themselves…’); won’t list similar Feminist examples – I’d be here forever;

4 Believing that your preferred mental tool is the Only Tool to discover Truth about Anything: I take his point that his studying Theology would be a waste of his precious and finite time, but the scientific method is perhaps the worst tool of all to address the deep metaphysical epistemological and ontological question, that he was handling like an imbecilic buffoon.

Logic and (certain types of) Philosophy are the kings of tools to address this problem, and his painful lack of familiarity with them makes practically every statement in that book a ’2 + 2 = 5′ howler; likely the Feminist equally privileged ‘vagina-reasoning’ method would have got nearer the answer than he did.

So they’re extremely similar in uncritical belief and methodology (with zero skepticism) – just different labels – and the moment that Atheism started to comment upon the lot of Muslim womyn, then it stepped onto Feminist turf: Which they extremely jealously appropriate and guard.

I’m glad to see both sets of f*ckwit Utopian bullies tearing at each other: Confusion to the enemy! :D

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dale September 27, 2012 at 00:02

@Diogenes’ Lamp

>I’m on extremely bad terms with the ol’ Judeo-Christian Bearded Chap

:) You don’t know the half of how bad you have it. Fortunately, God is willing to deal with the problem for you; keep reading below.

>Can you recommend such a Bible (or Bible/Expository text combo), for one who’ll read it in deep and scholarly fashion (with a hair-trigger BS detector)?

I think it would be very good to read with exactly that attitude :) Regardless of what I am reading, if I shut my brain off whilst doing so I am likely to start making problems for myself. While the Bible makes clear that God is smarter than we are, it also shows we are to think maturely (e.g. “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.” or “Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity…”)

Three suggestions. First, understand that any book/message/whatever should be understood in reference to the intended audience. If I try to teach you how to treat your wife, based on a word problem I find in a Maths textbook, I am probably misusing the textbook :) The primary message of the Bible, which runs throughout it, is that God loves us, wants a restored love relationship with us, and how we can have that restored relationship. Trying to use the Bible to teach anything else, whether carpentry or cosmology, is just going to get me in trouble. Yeah, okay, there is also a strong secondary message on loving those around us too. The Bible gives similar summaries of itself in Matthew 7:12, Matthew 22:34-40 and Romans 13:8-10. (Understand that I cannot have a love relationship with God without a restored relationship with him.)

Second, understand that you don’t need to read the whole Bible to get the most important message. Yeah, that may sound sacrilegious. And no, I am not suggesting that parts of the Bible should be hidden or thrown out. I just mean that the most important message is how to attain a restored relationship with God. Your eternity depends on this, and only this. Any other idea is irrelevant by comparison.
Short version of the Bible: You are in massive trouble. You can never, no matter what you do, ever make up for even just a few cases of disobedience to the creator of the universe. And all of us are guilty of exactly that (except for the “just a few cases” part). You and I therefore deserve to be banned from God’s presence forever and be punished for our betrayal/treason. Sorry dude, but your ideas of “gimme another chance” or “I don’t want to be held accountable for my choices” are irrelevant. Good news: God knows you are can’t get out of your own mess, and loves you enough to entirely provide a way out, even though you cannot earn it and certainly do not deserve it. Bad news: You are going to have to suck up your pride, accept that you aren’t even slightly good enough on your own and allow God to be your King/boss/big cheese. (No, you will not perfectly fulfill that commitment, but the requirement for that commitment still stands.)
I recommend reading the Biblical books of Titus, John and Romans. Titus is only a few pages long, and includes a brief part re the message above in chapter 3. It also stabs legions of religious teachers in the eye (chapter 1, verses 10-16) which you may enjoy :)
I will warn you… Paul, who wrote Titus and Romans, was a smart man and he articulated the principles God taught him accordingly. The guy wrote at about a grade 10 to university level. He was also the run-on-sentence king. Apparently the Greeks circa 60-70 A.D. did not subscribe to the “short sentences – one idea per sentence only” approach that I was taught.
Titus is not too bad, but Romans will require a scholarly approach :)

Third, there are many translations I would say are reasonable, and the one you pick is not a major concern with respect to being able to get the most important message from the Bible. I use the New International Version, 1984 edition. I have “The NIV Study Bible”, which is good for including a substantial amount of information about how certain expressions common to the original audience or then-current cultural conditions may have affected interpretation. For example, the bit in Matthew 5:38-42 that says “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also” is a reference to being insulted, not being physically beaten/attacked.
If you are comfortable with Elizabethan English, the King James Version is also a great choice. Actually the best choice. If you can read Romans in the KJV and understand it you will prove yourself a scholar :)
I am sad to say that the guys who did the next edition of the NIV (after the original 1984 edition) fawned at the feminists and started changing text like “men” to “men and women” or “brothers” to “brothers and sisters”. Apparently so the women would not feel left out. Has our education level gone down so far that people do not understand that terms like “mankind”, while specifying “man”, already include everyone? Argh! “Christians” are SUPPOSED to tremble at the word of God, not at people’s cultural sensibilities and Feeeeelings. Feminists are trying to ruin everything.
That would also be one example of why my seminary training required us to read a passage in four different translations. That exposes you to a few different translators, thus hopefully allowing you to see the truth even if some translators were more interested in promoting whatever viewpoint than in humbly translating God’s words as they were originally given. I fortunately speak another language. I found that exposing yourself to the translators from an entirely different language group is an excellent way to get away from North American biases.
And no, I am not suggesting the average person cannot understand the Bible. I feel the opposite.

Send me an e-mail and I will try to track down some good on-line references for you. I prefer hard-copy books, which would be fine if you lived next door, but since you are across the pond it would be a bit of a walk to borrow one. dale.v99 // foxcustomsoftware.com

May God guide you as you seek truth.
Oh, and one final suggestion… sorry, but you really need to be reading the Bible directly for yourself whenever possible. I will be very happy to answer questions, but always also do your own research in the Bible. Us religious-types seem prone to falling flat on our faces when it comes to shutting up and letting God say what God wants to say, rather than us trying to stick in our own ideas. Sigh…. If you want to know what God thinks of (some) religious people, type in the following references at BibleGateway.com:
Amos 5:21-24
Hosea 6:4-6
Matthew 15:8-9
Matthew 23
and Titus 1:10-16 :)

Dale, who strives to obey God but will never be a perfect example in this life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Diogenes' Lamp September 27, 2012 at 14:28

Cheers for the reply Dale. :)

I’m already very familiar with most of what you wrote, but I evidently need to go into more detail about what I was asking, and my approach.

I’m the world’s last e-mailer, but I’ll [maybe, though probably not, in all honesty... nothing personal at all] drop you an e-mail when I’ve had a good ponder.

Cheers again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: