The more comments I read by those opposed to the Muslim center the more I wish all those who are incensed at this would understand that this vitriol ought to be applied to every group of religious fanatics.
I wish every bible-thumper in America could understand that the outrage and offense they feel about this mosque, the feeling that the Muslims are pushing this in every Christian’s face is the same that many atheists feel every day courtesy of the Christians. The insult of having someone else force you to accept their religion’s unpleasant beliefs, the gall of being expect to respect laws that were created solely based on their religious beliefs; these are the same way non-Christians feel in America.
Here we go agai
The way the Muslims make you feel? Well, that’s the way you both make us feel. We find you both annoying and somewhat frightening. We can’t fathom how you are able to believe the weird things you both accept without question and demand that we accept as “truth” just because you say we have to.
I read Christians resenting the way Muslims have bastardized our freedoms and Constitution for their own purposes (”And we won’t put up with it” they cry) without a hint of awareness that this is precisely how they come across to non-believers.
Since you two not getting along could seriously fuck up the lives of everyone on the planet at any moment, it’s in the best interest of the rest of us that we do what we can to keep you from each other’s throats.
A compromise, then. Hold off on the Muslim center for now or relocate it to a reasonable alternative site. Muslims willingly concede that the time is not right no matter how unreasonable the opposition. In return the Christians convince their minions to back off in Minnesota and California. Muslims get two mosques and lose their YMMA and the Christians get to salvage their righteous indignation. Both sides gain a little and both sides lose a little. Everybody gets to save face, both of you can claim a victory for your side.
Then the rest of us can quit holding our breathes and get back to worrying about truly important matters.
Perhaps the most pernicious religious belief. It’s the initial assumption from which all the rest of religious belief flows.
The attitude assumes the outcome of the quest to learn and wonder. “No matter what, the answer is going to be God”. I see no need to presume an end-game, it’s the journey that’s important. It’s OK to say “I don’t know”. Beliefs are rest-stops along the way, they shouldn’t be used as permanent residences for the mind. All knowledge is inadequate, but religious belief, for many of us, is more than inadequate. It’s unnecessary. It attempts to nail down and codify the human propensity to wonder and inquire, to ask and not be satisfied with the answer. If you think you already know something so absolutely that you prefer to ignore and even disparage any information you encounter that challenges those beliefs and if you’ve already reached an unassailable conclusion in advance of hearing all the evidence then you have followed the wrong path and have encountered a dead-end, an intellectual infinite loop. Your knowledge cannot grow as it has nowhere to go. The limitations of belief create a boundary layer, a point beyond which faith cannot go.
I contend that anyone who proposes that they already know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what the end of the journey of knowledge is; anyone who claims a special knowledge of the final answer without having asked all the questions; anyone who contends that they have completed the journey, that they’ve travelled clear to the end of knowledge and have come back to let a few of us in on the secret; are liars. They aren’t lying to me, I don’t believe them. They’re lying to themselves. They’ve convinced themselves that they possess all the answers, that there’s nothing know beyond this or that god. They’ve put their intellect on hold, they’ve created an answer that excuses them from asking any questions that are difficult or outside the bounds of faith.
This appears to substantiate the possibility of blasphemy laws being enacted in the West as presented in my last posting.
An atheist who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, Islam and the Pope in an airport’s prayer room has been given an Asbo.
Harry Taylor, 59, from Higher Broughton, Salford, left the anti-religious posters in prayer rooms at Liverpool
John Lennon Airport in November and December 2008.
Taylor denied three counts of causing religiously aggravated harassment during his trial at Liverpool Crown Court.
But he was found guilty by a jury and given a suspended six-month sentence yesterday, as well as an Asbo forbidding him from carrying anti-religious leaflets in public.
One of the posters Taylor left at the airport depicted a smiling crucified Christ next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, a cartoon depicted two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.” A third poster showed Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise being told: “Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins”. (Source-The Independent)
The National Secular Society expresses an opinion on this ruling that reflects my own thoughts.
One of the "offensive" images
The sentencing of Harry Taylor has been condemned by the National Secular Society as “creating a new blasphemy law that will open the way for every religious extremist to persecute and prosecute their critics.”
Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society said: “Regardless of the fact that this six month sentence has been suspended, it is still totally out of proportion for what Mr Taylor did. Nobody can deny that he was being deliberately provocative in leaving these rather mild cartoons, cut from Private Eye, in the prayer room, but in the end he didn’t harm anybody and was simply making a point about the existence of such a facility. The chaplain could quite easily have simply thrown the papers in the bin.
“Instead, she claims to have been hurt and offended by this material, which makes her ultra sensitivity a dangerous thing indeed. The professional ‘offence takers’ in religious communities will now feel that they have a strong new weapon to use against anyone who is critical or disapproving of them. It is, in effect, a blasphemy law that covers all religions and is much more powerful than the one that was abolished only two years ago.”
“Religiously aggravated offences represent a new kind of blasphemy law, and the professional offence takers in religious communities won’t be slow to exploit this new avenue of restricting criticism and comment about their beliefs. It is time for parliament to reconsider these provisions and remove them from the statute books.”
Mr Sanderson said that Mr Taylor describes himself as a “militant atheists” who wanted to challenge the existence of the “prayer room” particularly as it was situated on John Lennon Airport in Liverpool – he maintained that John Lennon was an atheist and would not have approved of the presence of the prayer room. (Source-National Secular Society)
I can’t imagine any rational free-thinker accepting this ruling without protest.
The Pope has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with the media coverage of the multitude of molestation claims being presented around the globe. Will he be the next person to make a legal challenge to this coverage and manage to silence criticism of the Church’s efforts to ignore and bury those claims? Isn’t it a form of blasphemy to question the actions of the Holy See?
How will Christians in the West react if Muslims are able to gain legal protection against any defamatory statement about Islam being made by those who don’t follow that religion, including those who believe in other gods?
When did life offer us a guarantee to never be offended by those who don’t share our opinions? By what universal right do the religious claim exemption from criticism and skepticism. It seems to me that the last refuge of any shallow philosophy that cannot defend itself with logic and reason is the court. When beliefs are indefensible make any offense a criminal action.
Finally, what about my beliefs as a non-religious believer? Shouldn’t I be equally protected by law from offensive remarks made by religious believers who think nothing of calling me immoral and condemning me to an eternity of pain and suffering?
The whole “anti-blasphemy” concept is a joke and antithetical in any nation that repects freedom of thought, speech and the press. Sadly it appears the list of nations that respect those freedoms is shrinking.
Anti-blasphemy laws are coming, I have little doubt. And they won’t be used to only protect Muslims from offense. Defenders of religious belief seem to think they are exempt from satire and criticism. One day soon they’ll have international law on their side and freedom of speech (where protected) will have to step aside to permit imprisonment or death for those who dare disagree with the church.
Am I over-stating the situation? I don’t think so. Consider the following:
A German cartoon mocking the Catholic Church has sparked holy outrage among believers here who say it incites hatred against the Pope and the Catholic faith.
The caricature, published in the Good Friday edition of satire magazine Titanic, shows a priest apparently having oral sex with a crucifix of Jesus on the cross.
The crucifix cartoon is a barbed commentary on recent revelations that 250 people in Germany were sexual abused at Church-run schools in the past decades. The scandal has shaken the German Church. A recent poll said Germans’ trust in the Catholic Church had fallen to 17% from 29% in late January and approval ratings for Pope Benedict have dropped from 38% to 24%.
The German Press Council reported that some 100 formal complaints have been filed since the magazine came out, a level of protest not seen since 2006, when German newspaper Die Welt reprinted the infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons.
Two criminal complaints have also been filed against the cartoonist and the editors of Titanic, claiming the picture slanders their religion. The state prosecutors office in Frankfurt, where Titanic is based, said it would decide next week whether to begin an investigation against the magazine.
“We were shocked — shocked! — By the reaction to the cartoon,” Titanic editor-in-chief Leo Fischer told THR, his tongue firmly in cheek. “It shows a priest cleaning the crucifix. … I find it strange that Catholics immediately think of sex when they see it.”
I submit there are two primary motivations behind the efforts of religious sects to have their beliefs protected by law against criticism. The first is the unprecedented exposure of the less than savory aspects and activities of these groups on the internet. Never before have critics had a vehicle like the internet with which to publish and document religion’s dark side. Even those trapped in militant theocracies can speak out in anonymity to the rest of the world. Since the defenders of the faith cannot deny the allegations they attempt to criminalize the exposures.
The second primary factor is the increasing irrelevance of religion among the world’s citizens. As more natural explanations are found for those phenomena once attributed to the gods, the less all-powerful the gods become. As we enter the 21st century, 1st century explanations are unsatisfactory and easily dismissed. In our modern world there is little reason to believe in the gods. They serve no useful purpose and offer scant comfort. As the masses cease to allow the god’s representatives here on Earth total freedom to behave as they wish, the priests and imams begin to panic. Their hold on the people who once blindly followed them and excused them for their excessive and immoral lifestyles is lessening. They are no longer able to keep their sheep in line with threats of godly displeasure and eternal damnation. So they do what, in the end, all dictators and despots do. They attempt to use the force of law to enforce their beliefs. Not satisfied to demonize their detractors, they try to criminalize them. Non-believers might not be impressed with being consigned to a non-existent hell, but they can’t deny the living hell of being imprisoned.
Religious belief does not always simply fade away without a whimper. Too many times in history we’ve seen that just before a fanatical regime disappears it fights the hardest to survive. It has no regard for the damage it inflicts on humanity in its efforts to remain powerful and relevant.
In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, an effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.
The United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.
The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.
While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.
“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”
France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.
On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.
“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”
The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)
Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.
While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.
There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.
Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?
Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.
The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.
This subject both fascinates me and fills me with dread. It’s fairly obvious that Christians in the West are growing just as intolerant of criticism and challenge as the Muslims in the East. When our government bows to pressure from the theists and supports blasphemy laws that directly contradict our Constitution the groundwork is being laid for the further erosion of our freedom of speech. I worry for the future of our secular and pluralistic republic.
A prominent Buffalo area businessman who founded the BridgesTV network to improve the image of Muslims in the U.S. has been arrested and charged with murdering his estranged wife – by beheading her at his company’s office in Orchard Park, N.Y., on Thursday.
Police have charged the husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder in the death of Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37.
In its logo, BridgesTV boasts of “connecting people through understanding” via its dish network available in several states. Its Web site quotes comments about the company by Jay Leno, Brian Williams and others, plus a screen shot of a CNBC interview with Hassan conducted by Maria Bartiromo.
Programs include kids shows, “American Muslim Teen Talk,” Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” and an interview show with James Zogby. Its news program “brings you balanced coverage from around the world. News you can trust.”
Police say the wife had an order of protection from the man. A murder weapon has not yet been recovered. The couple had two children, ages 4 and 6.
Khalid J. Qazi, president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York, said, “There is no place for domestic violence in our religion — none. Islam would 100 percent condemn it.” (Source-Editor & Publisher)
“Islam would 100 percent condemn it”? How about “Islam does 100 percent condemn it”? Why the timid response?
Islam, like Christianity, is an ancient religion that has no place in modern societies. It’s rules of conduct and moral code are suited for 1st century goat-herders, not people living in the 21st century. In the civilized world, women are not property.
If Hassan wanted to change the Western concept of Islamic barbarism, he certainly went about it the wrong way. At least he committed this atrocity in the U.S. where he’ll be held accountable for his behavior and not in the Middle East where his actions would have been excused and accepted.
Heidi Klum, who dressed up as Hindu goddess Kali, who symbolises death and destruction, for her Halloween bash, has left the Hindu community in America fuming.
And now upset Hindus have asked Klum to make a public apology for posing as a sacred figure.
“Goddess Kali is highly revered in Hinduism and she is meant to be worshipped in temples and not to be used in clubs for publicity stunts or thrown around loosely for dramatic effects,” Contactmusic quoted Indo-American statesman Rajan Zed as saying.
He added: “Hindus welcome Hollywood and other entertainment industries to immerse themselves in Hinduism, but they should take it seriously and respectfully, and not just use the religion for decoration or to advance their selfish agenda.
“Casual flirting sometimes results in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees.”
Other than Zed, various Hindu leaders, including Jawahar L. Khurana of the Hindu Alliance of India, and Bhavna Shinde of Hindu Janajagruti Samiti, have condemned Klum for posing as Goddess Kali.
They went to the extent of calling Klum’s act as “denigrating”. (Yahoo)
The Muslims are all heady now. Their religion is finally being noticed again after being relegated to the status of a 3rd or 4th rate religion for last few hundred years.
Yeah, they were something once. Muslim contributions to Mathematics, Astronomy, and Philosophy in the Middle Ages are well documented. Then they started putting more emphasis on religion and turned their backs on their own discoveries. Their religion became as irrelevant as their culture until Islam started being interpreted by clerics with political aspirations as well as the means to control their people’s minds.
But now they’re famous, everybody’s aware of Islam these days. And like many celebrities Islam is getting a little carried away with its new-found fame. It’s getting a little snooty, it’s taking itself a bit too seriously.
It’s not enough that Islam is now acknowledged as a major religion. Islam’s own teachings, as interpreted by modern (only about 1500 years out-of-date) clerics, demand that non-believers are not acceptable.
There’s a lot of similarity between Muslims and fundamentalist Christians. They both lack a sense of humor. Neither can laugh at themselves, they are humorless theologies.
They both operate under the misconception that respect can be demanded of everyone without even trying to earn it. They can conceive of no reason why everyone shouldn’t share their beliefs, so they see nothing wrong with forcing their beliefs on others.
Well, sorry guys, but not everyone buys it. Not Islam, not Christianity, not Scientology, none of you. All your posturing and demanding respect makes no impression on us. Your threats of eternal damnation or worse don’t intimidate us. We are not awed by your displays of wealth, influence and firepower.
Those of us blessed by genetics with a sense of humor take you no more seriously than we take ourselves. We are happy blasphemers. We defend ourselves from you with mockery and exposure.
Quit being such drama queens and join the human race. Get over yourselves. Grow up. You won’t get your way by throwing a tantrum.
(Note: I’ve had a few comments asking if I was confusing Islam with Hinduism. No, but I wasn’t completely clear in the transition from the article quoted and my commentary. The attitude of the Hindus was illustrative of the current attitude of many religious, especially Muslims and fundamental Christians. Everything in my commentary applies equally to Hinduism, though they aren’t as obnoxious and demanding as their theological cousins usually.)
Islamic law isn’t based on a single interpretation of the Qur’an. “Islamic jurisprudence is not codified law: it is a series of formulations developed across generations by scholars and clerics. Depending on the Islamic school or historical era, these formulations can differ and even contradict each other.” (from the following article)
Iran follows a form of Islam that’s perhaps the most brutal and disgusting of any Muslim country. In 2005 two Iranian teenagers, Mahmoud Asgari (16) and Ayaz Marhoni (18), were both sentenced to death for what some human rights groups claimed was “consensual gay sex”. And now they are endorsing the killing of Christians and others they identify as apostates.
Eighteen years ago, Rashin Soodmand’s father was hanged in Iran for converting to Christianity. Now her brother is in a Mashad jail, and expects to be executed under new religious laws brought in this summer.
A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled “Islamic Penal Code”, which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith. Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against.
Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights. The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran’s own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs.
And yet few politicians or clerics in Iran see any contradiction between a law mandating the death penalty for changing religion and Iran’s constitution. There has been no public protest in Iran against it.
For one woman living in London, however, the Iranian parliamentary vote cannot be brushed aside. Rashin Soodmand is a 29-year-old Iranian Christian. Her father, Hossein Soodmand, was the last man to be executed in Iran for apostasy, the “crime” of abandoning one’s religion. He had converted from Islam to Christianity in 1960, when he was 13 years old. Thirty years later, he was hanged by the Iranian authorities for that decision.
Today, Rashin’s brother, Ramtin, is also held in a prison cell in Mashad, Iran’s holiest city. He was arrested on August 21. He has not been charged but he is a Christian. And Rashin fears that, just as her father was the last man to be executed for apostasy in Iran, her brother may become one of the first to be killed under Iran’s new law.
Not surprisingly, Rashin is desperately worried. “I am terribly anxious about him,” she explains. “Even though my brother is not an apostate, because he has never been a Muslim – my father raised us all as Christians – I don’t think he is safe. They assume that if you are Iranian, you must be Muslim.”
But six months later, the police came back and took her father away again. This time, they offered him a choice: he could denounce his Christian faith, and the church in which he was a pastor – or he would be killed. “Of course, my father refused to give up his faith,” Rashid recalls proudly. “He could not renounce his God. His belief in Christ was his life – it was his deepest conviction.” So two weeks later, Hossein Soodmand was taken by guards to the prison gallows and hanged.
Life for Rashin, her siblings and her mother became extremely difficult. Some Muslims are extremely hostile to people of any other religion, never mind to those who they consider apostates: Ayatollah Khomeini declared that “non-Muslims are impure”, insisting that for Muslims to wash the clothes of non-Muslims, or to eat food with non-Muslims, or even to use utensils touched by non-Muslims, would spoil their purity.
“After the revolution of 1979, Iran’s rulers wanted to turn Iran into an Islamic state, and to abolish the secular laws of the Shah,” explains Alexa Papadouris of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a human rights organisation that specialises in freedom of religion. “So the clerics instituted a mandate for judges presiding over criminal cases: if the existing penal code did not include legislation on whether a certain kind of behaviour is an offence, then the judges should refer to traditional Islamic jurisprudence.” In other words: sharia law.
There is another factor: President Ahmadinejad. “The President didn’t initiate the law mandating the death penalty for apostates,” says Papadouris, “but he has been lobbying for it. It is an effective form of playing populist politics. The Iranian economy is doing very badly, and the country is in a mess: Ahmadinejad may be calculating that he can gain support, and deflect attention from Iran’s problems, by persecuting apostates.”
The new law is not yet in force in Iran: it requires another vote in parliament, and then the signature of the Ayatollah. But that could happen within a matter of weeks. “Or,” says Papadouris, “it could conceivably be allowed to drop, were there a powerful enough international outcry”. (Source – The Telegraph)
As a non-religious humanist I denounce the killing of anyone for their religious beliefs. It’s not only inhumane but inefficient. You can’t kill a viewpoint.
It’s not only humanists who should be loudly opposing this violation of basic human rights. Christians and those of other, non-Islamic religions should be protesting this as well.
Islam will never be viewed by Western, may I say humane, societies as a peaceful and loving religion until these crimes against humanity have been forever renounced and abandoned.
““Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s secretary general. He did not mention the possibility that at least some of this “defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination,” if it exists at all, comes as a backlash to the 10,000-plus jihad terror attacks since 9/11, justified by their perpetrators by reference to the Qur’an and Islamic law.”
I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. The Radical Atheist blog makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site & will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use.All information is provided on an as-is basis.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b22523e9-f5f7-4a9b-bc3b-9681b1c2bf93)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=62b27f4f-7482-4fb9-8a06-d3798d616a67)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=346ae042-e8f3-4566-a422-0efe82294b79)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=2d81662b-b015-4e68-8b54-78cd64df8d3c)
