This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Christianity deserves better worshippers

Christianity deserves better worshippers - Comments

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 1 by Cartomancer

However, faith helps to stave off fears when you are part of a minority

Which would be why the gay community is such a bastion of religious sentiment I suppose... oh, wait, it isn't. Scratch that.

What faith does is to lull people into a sense that what they fear isn't really real. It does nothing to solve the problems that gave rise to those fears - discrimination, isolation, lack of rights and the rest. Organising and campaigning and integrating and taking control of your destiny staves off fears - believing nonsense without evidence has never helped anyone improve their lot.

If Britain were a more Christian country its people would not tolerate the rich, ruling elite punishing the most disadvantaged with harsh laws and unfair rhetoric. They would revolt against the state-created poverty upon us.

Which is why, I suppose, those god-soaked Americans have such a glorious egalitarian utopia, strong socialist values and a staunch unwillingness to support corporate greed at the expense of the poor. It would also explain the slavering capitalist hellholes of Scandinavia, Canada and Japan, where a lack of religion has led to the utter breakdown of community, society and human decency, pitiful welfare provision, social responsibilities undertaken grudgingly and soaring crime rates.

Yasmin, wake up. Get a clue. Please, just listen to yourself. Stop pretending that religion is a source of moral values. It isn't. Stop pretending that irreligion goes hand in hand with greed and selfishness. It doesn't. Open your faith-addled eyes to how the world REALLY is and leave behind the manifestly false canards of your religious upbringing. You are a bright person. You deserve a better outlook on reality than that.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 01:46:56 UTC | #902874

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 2 by Steve Zara

These figures delight fundamentalist atheists like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. They are winning many devotees – but not from the pesky 6 per cent of the British population who are non-Christians. Atheism is a foreign concept in our communities and our children seem to carry on believing in high numbers.

I have a suspicion that this is just made up. I have a friend who is an "atheist Muslim", and we have had stories of de-conversions on this site.

I think Alibhai Brown is mistaking atheism being a foreign concept with coming out as an atheist being culturally very difficult. It's perhaps the same as saying that in minority communities homosexuality is rare - it isn't, saying you are homosexual is, though!

Incidentally, one of my New Year's ambitions is now to become a fundamentalist atheist. Considering those who are given that label, it is surely a state of great wit and wisdom. Any hints as to how this is achieved would be appreciated.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:03:56 UTC | #902879

SoHelpMeReason's Avatar Comment 3 by SoHelpMeReason

"Fundamentalist atheists" - now really, lady, what is the distinction between debate and fundamentalism to you? Dragging out influential convictions and forcing them into the public debating arena is not the same as declaring you know the very nature of the entire universe - you - and pushing for people to follow shady dogma.

I hate that term.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:06:29 UTC | #902880

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 4 by Neodarwinian

So, the delusion needs a better class of the deluded?!?! An interesting take, but a non-surprising one that politicians have always used religion to cement their power.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:30:31 UTC | #902885

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 5 by Schrodinger's Cat

Ah yes. Islam is the religion of peace, Christianity is full of hypocrites and the rest are deserting in droves, and the hardline 'fundamentalist atheists' wont of course ever win over the non-Christian religious.

Here endeth todays' sermon from Winston Smith at the Ministry of Truth ( aka The Guardian ).

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:56:46 UTC | #902888

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 6 by Steve Zara

Comment Removed by Author

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:13:38 UTC | #902891

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 7 by Schrodinger's Cat

I am not convinced, by the way, that the decline in religion among the young has anything to do with a decline in intrinsic motivations for religious belief. I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that people live a lot longer now, so death is further away for a young person, and also the sheer number of distractions that people have that divert from religious thinking.

It wasn't that many decades or centuries ago that average life expectancy was half what it is now, most kids died in infancy, and life itself for most people consisted of a back breaking and boring mediocrity in a field, down a mine, or in some factory. It's not hard to see why the 'opium of the people' held sway.

These days, getting old and decrepid seems an infinitely long time away for youngsters. Death has become almost a taboo subject and dying almost an embarassing thing to have to admit to. Add to that the sheer number of hedonisic distractions.....and its small wonder fewer and fewer require the opium and the likes of Cameron try to draw upon Dickensian visions of our supposedly glorious Christian past.

Of course....that's a Cameron who will be re-introducing work houses and the Poor Laws sometime soon as well.....in the name of Victorian values and 'austerity'.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:48:53 UTC | #902895

Net's Avatar Comment 8 by Net

the chalice of religion, they tarnish its beauty and purpose, turning its gold to nickel. Or let me put it another way. They sully and invade the privacy of faith and misuse God for propaganda and political games.

what is this nonsense? the beauty and purpose of religion??? and what is the further nonsense of that stupid surname? oh look at me! i'm an enlightened secular moslem!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:10:10 UTC | #902898

MilitantNonStampCollector's Avatar Comment 9 by MilitantNonStampCollector

the chalice of religion, they tarnish its beauty and purpose, turning its gold to nickel.


More like a disgusting chalice brimming with a thick soup of hate, bigotry and lies.


Atheism is a foreign concept in our communities and our children seem to carry on believing in high numbers.


Nothing to do with forced indoctrination by parents of course.


However, faith helps to stave off fears


Faith is the fear of reason.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:16:07 UTC | #902904

capetownian's Avatar Comment 10 by capetownian

Cameron is just another cynical political opportunist.... They use religion to garner votes when required - but I reckon most would fail a polygraph test if asked directly about belief in the Christian "God" and and all the supernatural delusions that go with it!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:27:22 UTC | #902913

sandman67's Avatar Comment 11 by sandman67

Is this dimwit serious, or has just never read a history book?

Christianity has always been, at it deepest core, a poltical machine used to control populations, as has Islam and Judaeism. That is the whole principle of religion - socio-politcal control.

That Chrstianity is only with us today thanks to Constantine, who used it to exert control over a fractious and rebellious Roman empire he took at the point of a sword seems to have escaped the writer. That he then used it to quash all dissent, and at his own orders eliminated all other religions also seems to have not been in the back of a cornflakes box education of the author.

Of course, that history lesson also seems to have excluded the wars of religion in Europe, the Crusades, the post Henry 8th religious genocides and purges, the Spanish and English expulsions of Jews, the Balkans conflicts, the Irish strifes ...... and the list goes on and on.

And as another commentator has pointed out, if we need to see what effects Christianty has on society we need only look West across the Great Divide (The Atlantic) to that theocratic madhouse the USA. My what a utopian deamland lies over there eh?

Utter bloody tripe from start to end.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 07:07:54 UTC | #902921

zombiewoof's Avatar Comment 12 by zombiewoof

Comment 10 by capetownian :

Cameron is just another cynical political opportunist.... They use religion to garner votes when required - but I reckon most would fail a polygraph test if asked directly about belief in the Christian "God" and and all the supernatural delusions that go with it!

It's clear to me that he's an "opportunist" but I wouldn't rely on a polygraph test to prove it. They don't work.

Is there any British newspaper that doesn't offer these people a platform for their hate filled bile?

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:37:35 UTC | #902934

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 13 by Premiseless

Comment 7 by Schrodinger's Cat :

I am not convinced, by the way, that the decline in religion among the young has anything to do with a decline in intrinsic motivations for religious belief.

More to the point, what of poorly wired mind/emotion ratios? I say theism is just one range of examples. Many people have a similar mindset arrangement recycling upon delusional subjectives. In some respects we all do, whether by necessity or delusion. I think some of this due the collateral mutations of being surrounded by theisms thinking 'over emotional' permutations per se. It's tough , for example, never to get a headache if living permanently around an 'emotional delusional'. Rationality, sincerity and whatever would be well employed linking up bonds to other humans gets deferred to passive pastimes - distraction events to defer frequencies of emotive meltdowns. Wasted fuel in my terms! Certainly going nowhere worth going. The entropy stalls the opposition. The poison persists.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:52:41 UTC | #902937

Baglady's Avatar Comment 14 by Baglady

Comment 11 by sandman67 :

Is this dimwit serious, or has just never read a history book?

Christianity has always been, at it deepest core, a poltical machine used to control populations, as has Islam and Judaeism. That is the whole principle of religion - socio-politcal control.

...

Utter bloody tripe from start to end.

I'm glad I read all the comments first before jumping in to say the above (but nowhere near as well).

Control the religion and you control the people, Cameron was just doing what he considers his job I suspect.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:24:50 UTC | #902943

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 15 by Jos Gibbons

Christianity deserves better worshippers

When I first read this title, I wondered if perhaps YAB was concerned modern Christians for the most part ignore biblical injunctions such as Jesus saying we should give what we have to the poor. Remember the Pope on Christmas Day saying we’re too material, as he held a solid gold sceptre covered in rubies and diamonds? The clergy show little obedience to the rule and, worse, encourage obedience in their followers so they can gain their wealth. Is this what concerns YAB? Sadly, what she follows with is much less convincing.

When politicians grab and wave the chalice of religion, they tarnish its beauty and purpose

And what is the beauty and purpose of religion?

They sully and invade the privacy of faith and misuse God for propaganda and political games.

Apparently not that then.

[Examples of non–secularist politics] The Pope gave him special blessings. These are the more dramatic examples of politicking with God. Just as common and corrosive is the everyday manipulation of religion by politicians.

If the Pope is involved in these shenanigans, it can hardly be characterised as a misuse of religion; instead this is what religion involves, and is a problem with it. Doctrines are judged by their followers – that’s how we assess Communism and it’s how we’ll assess Christianity.

Recently, David Cameron did just that. The state should be secular, religiously neutral.

While I do agree that’s what should happen, it isn’t legally mandated in the UK – indeed, the existence of the COE contradicts it – so we mustn’t act as if Cameron is breaking the law. (In the US anti–secular policies genuinely are unconstitutional.)

This is a Christian country … Only it isn't. When you consider our domestic and foreign policy or how people behave, Britain cannot be called Christian … at its best, Christianity is one of the world's most humane and tender of religions and deserves a better class of worshipper than many of those who lay claim to it.

We’re talking about a religion whose deity demanded numerous genocides. And don’t wheel out the “Jesus was better” lie: he said all OT rules had to last indefinitely, and he said he had come to bring not peace but a sword. And let’s not forget Hell, which shows you just how tolerant the Christian god is. At “its” best, Christianity’s best, i.e. the best way to behave that is actually based on Christian doctrines rather than just being something Christians do (and if YAB gets to call some Christians bad followers, how do we even know who Christians are anyway?), these facts must be taken seriously. If you want a humane, tender religion, go for Jainism. Certainly don’t go for an Abrahamic religion.

There are, of course, Britons who do follow the example of their Lord. I know good believers who shelter asylum-seekers, feed the hungry in soup kitchens, try hard to speak and do no evil, forgive those who hurt them and are not tempted by excessive materialism.

By YAB’s logic, hardly anyone followed the Lord’s example during the centuries when it was literally illegal not to. When people were tortured, stoned or burned at the stake in the name of Christianity, that was following “the example of their Lord” to the exact same extent as the stuff YAB likes, because in both cases Biblical verses back it up. But if you define the quality of a Christian by such cherry–picking, modern secular methods as YAB does, her contention that today Christians aren’t all that great is still silly – compared with their ancestors they’re far less deplorable.

They are, though, now diminishing. A major survey in 2010 found a long-term, steady decline in the number of practising Christians in Britain. Fifty per cent said they followed no organised religion. In 1983, that figure was 19 per cent. Among 18- to 24-year-olds, the numbers of disbelievers today is 64 per cent.

Hold on a second … I thought YAB was defining good Christians by what they did, not the number of people who SAY they’re Christian. Make up your mind! This distinction really matters if your argument is “Christianity needs BETTER followers”. Or should YAB have said “more”?

These figures delight fundamentalist atheists

I would have much more sympathy with the term “fundamentalist atheist” if anyone ever even tried to define it. YAB certainly doesn’t. Fundamentalism is utter adherence to a text as infallible and literal, and atheism has no texts.

They are winning many devotees – but not from the pesky 6 per cent of the British population who are non-Christians.

First Christians aren’t high enough in quality, then they’re not high enough in quality, then their quantity is much greater by another estimate contrary to that of “a major survey”. Make … up … your … mind what you want to say!

faith helps to stave off fears when you are part of a minority and many of us feel it wakes our consciences and reminds us of those human faults – vanity, selfishness, righteousness, prejudices and greed

Now, which of YAB’s mutually contradictory complaints does this evidence? Perhaps this is not the best way to do Christianity, which is why it shows the followers are messing up? Or perhaps it IS the right way, but it’s rarely used in the 94 % Christian communities that know little of atheism. Or maybe these Christians are obeying their religion properly, but there just aren’t many of them … or maybe there are. I haven’t a clue.

If Britain were a more Christian country its people would not tolerate the rich, ruling elite punishing the most disadvantaged with harsh laws and unfair rhetoric.

It doesn’t. It may not currently criminalise such things (with the Tories in charge, what do you expect?), but didn’t 2011 riots show much resentment toward the rich acting like this?

They would revolt against the state-created poverty upon us.

Oh, yeah, because nothing like that was in the most memorable headlines of the year. I mean, it might have been, like, 10 people or something …

They would preserve the welfare state – born at a time when the country was more Christian and understood mutuality and societal obligations. That generosity is gone.

The only sense in which the welfare state has recently declined is a reduction in government spending to balance books, of which most Britons are unsupportive. It’s not as if even those who have seen it as a necessary evil have made clear their hopes the budget reductions be in welfare instead of the army. As for us being more Christian when it was invented, by definition everything we’ve invented a while ago was when we were more religious and more ignorant. Is the invention of Thunderbirds attributable to Christianity? Is the decline of faith in the UK (which YAB says both is and isn’t happening) the reason all the animations today are in CGI instead of supermarionation? It’s the same “cum hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy.

The most recent British Social Attitudes Survey was a depressing testimony of what the country has become. In 1997, the vast majority thought benefits were too low. Today, 54 per cent believe them too high; 63 per cent blame "feckless" or "lazy" parents for child poverty; 45 per cent oppose new housing and most do not want tax increases to fund social welfare. Penny Young … observed: "The big question coming out of this year's report is whether we really are in it together or just in it for ourselves." And this is a supposedly Christian country with Christian values? Where is the Big Society

I sorely hate the truth of these statistics, and I’m an atheist and YAB is a Muslim. What’s so Christian, then, about wanting our society to be more generous than this? Once YAB has made up her mind what being a Christian means and what percentage of us are Christians, she can then say whether we’re doing it properly or not. For now, it should be pointed out that since 1997 welfare has increased considerably, so the percentages of people thinking it too low and too high had to respectively decrease (or stay the same) and increase (or stay the same). Then there’s the question of how true these statistics are. It worries me that we invest so much confidence in 63 % of people all using the same rare words to describe their view; this was clearly a multiple choice question whose wording is ripped from the Daily Mail. Our right–wing media, of course, has also largely shaped such attitudes as these – while being as Christian as Britain gets. As for the Big Society, what’s so Christian about an idea invented in 2010?

One feels for the truly faithful, such as Archbishops … Their words are unheeded

Unheeded? 26 COE of Bishops have unelected, permanent, guaranteed positions in the House of Lords. That’s almost half of the Bishops the COE has.

Too many are like Cameron

Too many who – people, clergymen? The language isn’t clear.

[They] use their religion as a weapon against those they despise, the poor, helpless and "alien": all those embraced by Jesus Christ in his time.

And how, incidentally, are they able to do that? Because the Bible backs up those ideals too, if you know which parts to quote. Let’s stop trying to say what the “right” way to read a book that contradicts itself countless times would look like.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 09:33:22 UTC | #902944

GPWC's Avatar Comment 16 by GPWC

Whilst I destest politicians playing the religious card, what I have detected in 2011 is the increasing use of the political card by religions. The religoons can't have it both ways.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:02:28 UTC | #902949

Mrkimbo's Avatar Comment 17 by Mrkimbo

A nice woman who can't quite kick the supernatural habit even when the writing is on the wall. Christianity is what Christianity does, not what it says it does. She just can't get past the propaganda - including the yawn-inducing bollocks about 'fundamentalist atheists.' That strawman has been destroyed so often and so thoroughly that to use it betrays a deep lack of intellectual honesty. But she seems to be desperately trying to convince herself as much as anyone else.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:15:30 UTC | #902952

Mr DArcy's Avatar Comment 18 by Mr DArcy

Surely some righteous iman should declare a fatwah on this author? She wants to see Britain as a more Christian nation? Surely such a sentiment is worthy of the full force of Islamic law?

And she's a woman, therefore her opinion is only worth half a man's!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:34:03 UTC | #902956

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 19 by Premiseless

Comment 17 by Mrkimbo :

But she seems to be desperately trying to convince herself as much as anyone else.

This is the parasite theism has on the individual. They truly feel outside agency is kindly supplying all love and other valued emotions to themselves and their progeny. Then their evaluations are based upon how deluded others are in thinking from the same script and feeling the same external force.

Rarely, and probably never, have many theists ventured into wondering what methods they would employ if leader of a nation and that religion has been deliberately developed as an easiest short term way to control people, which of course non-theists realise is its mainstay.

Rarely do people realise that if it weren't necessary to control large populations, religion would have died away. It would be less necessary for a bully (god) to be developed which all must fear displeasing!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 10:48:32 UTC | #902958

Drosera's Avatar Comment 20 by Drosera

Atheism is a foreign concept in our communities and our children seem to carry on believing in high numbers.

As long as this is true they are doomed to remain second-rate at everything that matters in an advanced society. Where people are discouraged to think for themselves they will stay ignorant.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:07:53 UTC | #902961

Metamag's Avatar Comment 21 by Metamag

Jos Gibbons for president(of whatever)!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:44:07 UTC | #902967

sycorax's Avatar Comment 22 by sycorax

I fear Yasmin would get far more nourishment from eating her Quran and keeping Quiet

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:45:49 UTC | #902968

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 23 by Stafford Gordon

How irritating! Of course politicians abuse religion, what else are they going to do with; there's votes in them thar' pews.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:44:37 UTC | #902970

AlexP's Avatar Comment 24 by AlexP

I am always amazed how everyone seems to know what christianity - or every other religion, for that matter - is really supposed to mean.

And somehow that's usually what the person in question is already convinced of. I have yet to find anyone skimming through the bible and saying "What? God wants me to do that?! Crap, I loath the very thought, but you can't argue with the almighty, can you?"

When something less than "beautiful" is done in the name of a religion, the "faithful" always got something "wrong". They were misled, they were mere pretenders or they mistook their own prejudices for god's will. You won't hear anyone say "They were genuine and pious believers. It just happened that their religion sucks."

Unless someone like Alibhai-Brown can offer actual and tangible proof that her interpretation of her religion is truly gods will - good luck with that - everyone else has as much right to call his religion the true one as she does. Even a "loathsome, theocratic state" like Saudi-Arabia ( and I happen to agree with that statement ) can claim to follow the correct interpretation of gods will. It's not like anyone of themhas any kind of proof there. Their claims are all empty, the "nice" and "beautiful" ones as much as the "tarnished" or "loathsome" ones.

And that is why, in a secular state, we don't let religions decide what is right or wrong, what is good or evil. Not because we can't trust the faithful - we can't trust their faith to begin with.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:03:43 UTC | #902971

Mike Kemp's Avatar Comment 25 by Mike Kemp

Comment 10 by capetownian :

Cameron is just another cynical political opportunist.... They use religion to garner votes when required - but I reckon most would fail a polygraph test if asked directly about belief in the Christian "God" and and all the supernatural delusions that go with it!

This is classic stuff. Governments in trouble turn to religion and sport when the going gets tough. When you hear a government leader proposing that more sport should be taught in schools, or that (say) the country will be transformed by hosting the Olympics, or that we should all embrace Christian morals, then you know for sure that things are going badly wrong, and they are plain out of constructive ideas.

On the other hand, the original article failed to mention that this speech by Cameron was made at a dinner in celebration of the anniversary of the King James' version of the bible translation, so one wanders what he was expected to say; he is not one for taking a contrary stance (at least not successfully, as his hamfisted attempts in Europe have proven).

On the substantive point, I wonder if we should be surprised that a Muslim author would much prefer the hand-wringing Christianity of Rowan Williams than the razor of reason directed against them.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:05:11 UTC | #902972

Reginald's Avatar Comment 26 by Reginald

The problem is not only with Christian worshippers, but with Christianity itself. The writer says "at its best it is the most humane and tender"; well that applies only to the in-group, or those prepared to join it without asking awkward questions. To everyone else it is inhumane, intolerant and bigoted, and opposed to knowledge and culture,-just like its Judaic roots.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:09:20 UTC | #902974

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 27 by Premiseless

Comment 20 by Drosera :

Atheism is a foreign concept in our communities and our children seem to carry on believing in high numbers.

As long as this is true they are doomed to remain second-rate at everything that matters in an advanced society. Where people are discouraged to think for themselves they will stay ignorant.

This is an interesting point on a few levels.

  1. Has theism some features an ambitious person might utilise to advantage minus their personal belief per se? Is it moral for a non believer to access power via theistic opportunism? The reverse is certainly the case. Or even the both together - non believer starting belief!

  2. Has a truly deceived 'believer of belief' a counter claim against the persons deluding them or is their reward the painful liberation and adjustment to personality overhaul, then stepping on the rationality ladder late and significantly compromised by lost time and quality of life. Is there an injustice being done to a 'slave class' that is deserving of compensation from the affluent corruptors of mind and rank of power? How likely is this when laws are most often made by the uppers anyhow? Laws for deluding slaves. Belief for deluding slaves. General crumbs, of mind and lifestyle, for the lowly whilst the riches flow upwards.

  3. Also, of the non theists, is there a code amongst them which respects all other people as equal and worthy of fair share, or is it a case of, "If I can I will and they that fall are lesser mortals."? Ought we have universal codes of conduct absent exploitative hedonism ( the mass suffer whilst the few gain) when it can be got away with?

All this and more at a place near you this very minute!

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:17:51 UTC | #902975

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 28 by Peter Grant

Christianity deserves better worshippers

No, Christianity has exactly the sort of credulous idiots it deserves.

When politicians grab and wave the chalice of religion, they tarnish its beauty and purpose, turning its gold to nickel.

They are using religion in the exact same way it has always been used, no need to act all surprised about it.

BTW I can't find anything about SAM HARRIS in this piece, the tag is somewhat misleading.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:36:16 UTC | #902978

Premiseless's Avatar Comment 29 by Premiseless

The heading I think more appropriate is, "People deserve access to atheism."

Is it a persons fault when they become deluded? Of the range of people can we say which have been truly deluded and which are delusional per se? I know there are certain 'brain types' which are poor receptors of sequences of logical concepts. This doesn't prove them to be 'wrong' people, but when such persons might become prone to insistence on belief there is something very wrong about their behaviour - an absence of reason and an insistence on fiction as if knowledge.

I think the territory is poorly defined due the variables the 'poison' has posited upon us. For example, even science, long in the past, might have agreed with certain wild assertions now known to be false belief. Humans have an update problem that seems endemic amongst us, not least that of affluence and power which misfortunes the millions per year to suffer an early grave, plus the bilions of unequal ( seemingly unjust) accidents people are born to. Here we are discussing mass 'thought mortality' amidst a mass 'physical mortality' and employing degrees of dissonance that enable us to sever certain chronic conditions which feed this cycle that require more than simply better knowledge per se.

Who has the solution we seek? And are some of us simply here to see if another product for profit can become of it? Is this all we ever are reduced to doing?

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:54:23 UTC | #902980

jel's Avatar Comment 30 by jel

Christianity deserves better worshippers

The Independent deserves better writers.

Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:25:03 UTC | #902985