I debate with theists a lot. I’m a member of a debate forum where the atheist/theist ratio, based on active members who debate in the religious threads, favors the atheist/agnostic/non-Christian contingent. However, the theists that do stick around and debate frequently are pretty good at defending their opinions. They’re an active, contentious bunch, just what we need to keep some balance.
In all honesty, every debate between theists and atheists should begin with the challenge to produce physical and convincing evidence that their god exists. Until that challenge is met no further assertions should be allowed. The primary contention has not been resolved.
However, if we insisted that whenever we debated a theist, whatever the topic, they first answer the challenge to the very existence of their god, we would quickly become strident and annoying even in our own eyes. Atheists would become too much like theists in that regard.
So we mention god as often as theists do. Is that a problem? They should be pleased, free advertising. Besides, they need us. Who else would there be to blame for all the bad stuff if everybody became Christians?
You wanna talk technology? I can go on for hours on that topic without once mentioning any religious concept, even by analogy.
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.
It’s puts insane thoughts like this into your head.
A US cage fighter ripped out the heart of his training partner while he was still alive after becoming convinced he was possessed by the devil.
Jarrod Wyatt also cut out his friend’s tongue and ripped off most of his face in a brutal assault that police said looked like a scene from a horror film.
They found the 26 year old standing naked over his friend’s body with body parts, including an eyeball, strewn around the blood splattered room.
Wyatt told police he had drunk a cup of tea spiked with hallucinogenic mushrooms and became convinced his close friend Taylor Powell was possessed.
According to an autopsy Powell,21, bled to death after his heart was ripped out.
The coroner said Powell had been alive when the organ was ripped out after his chest had been sliced open with a knife.
Wyatt told the police he thrown the heart into a fire along with other organs that he had removed from the body.
He told investigators he cooked the body parts because he was fearful Powell was still alive and he “needed to stop the Devil.”
Police had been called to the grisly scene after a third friend had witnessed a sudden mood change in Wyatt after they had all ingested wild mushroom tea.
Justin Davis told police he returned to the flat in Klamath, California, to find Wyatt naked and covered from head to toe in blood.
He noticed an eyeball lying in the middle of the floor and saw Powell’s mutilated body.
A lawyer representing Wyatt has claimed the wild mushrooms caused him to act in such a violent way and had not control over his actions “My client was trying to silence the devil,” said James Fallman.
“I think he was having a psychotic fit based on the mushrooms he had.”
Wyatt has been charged with first degree murder and torture.
Prosecutors added the torture charge as Powell was still alive when his heart was removed.
I agree he was psychotic, but not because of the mushrooms. I’ve taken mushrooms, and they didn’t make me want to do this. They only acted on the bizarre thoughts that religious belief had already placed in his mind.
And people still ask why so many of us object to religious belief.
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.
It’s the belief of the religious that we should all live by their rules, open opposition is not allowed.
Their dogma allows for illogical censorship, book burnings, prohibitions. They see nothing wrong with denying everyone the chance to make their own decisions and reach their own conclusions.
They avoid being exposed to anything that challenges their beliefs. And since they’re in the majority in many countries, they have weight to throw around. Bullies always bully others out of fear.
The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign, which late last year raised in excess of $20,000 from public donations, has met a set back in their plans. Nationwide bus company NZ Bus, who had tentatively approved the campaign’s ads on buses in major city centres, have now rejected them.
NZ Bus stated that they have received a number of complaints from the public about the proposed ads, which read “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Advertisements with identical wording ran in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Spain. Similar campaigns also ran successfully in Croatia, Finland, Holland, Italy, America and across the Tasman in Australia.
“We are gravely concerned that in New Zealand we’re unable to present an atheistic message, showing that we do not have the same practical freedom of expression as in other first world countries. It highlights why this campaign is so necessary.” said spokesperson Simon Fisher.
http://www.nogod.org.nz/2010/02/atheist-bus-campaign-determined-to-roll-on-despite-set-back/ (Emphasis added)
Let’s break the message down and see if we can find what’s so objectionable.
There’s probably no god.
An opinion rather mildly offered. Nothing like the presumption of absolute knowledge claimed in religiously influenced public postings. There’s no condemnation of believers or of any particular religion. It’s perhaps the mildest expression of disagreement with religious belief I’ve ever encountered. Yet it seems to make religious people apoplectic.
Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
Oh, well, yeah, there it is. The complete antithesis of religious belief. A direct challenge to the faith. Now I see why theists have raised such a stink over these banners.
OK, no, I really don’t. Does god want us to worry? (Actually he does. The Bible, for example, encourages believers to live in fear and trembling of their god. If I thought for a moment that their god was real, I’d fear their god, too. He’s portrayed as one mean sum-bitch. )
Is it anti-theistic to suggest that everyone should be able to enjoy their lives? Are those values which somehow conflict with religious belief?
If anyone thinks they can clearly present an intellectually satisfying explanation for why these signs should be opposed I’d love to hear it.
Atheists are often challenged on their lack of belief. Christians in the U.S. seem to think that atheists are only opposed to their god, ignoring the fact that disbelieving in gods includes all the gods invented by mankind throughout history. Atheists are accused of being mad at god or resentful of god’s laws. Some say we simply want to live a life full of sin and disobedience without having to submit to the authority of a divine rule-giver.
What our challengers fail to appreciate is that atheism is the disbelief in a broader range of fantastic thinking than just their particular faith. Atheists reject for lack of evidence belief in any concept that can be reasonably categorized as supernatural or superstitious. To atheists the belief in a personal god is as nonsensical and unfounded as the belief that a black cat crossing your path brings bad luck. Many theists dismiss the idea that walking under a ladder creates bad luck but fail to notice the obvious correlation between that belief and their own belief in gods.
Many atheists consider supernatural and superstitious beliefs to be fairly benign; believe what you will as long as it doesn’t interfere with another person’s privilege to believe what they wish. Yet this degree of tolerance allows the more harmful consequences of supernatural and superstitious belief to be practiced without criticism. Tolerance of the differences between individuals is commendable; tolerance of belief systems that are used to subjugate, enslave and kill those who don’t share those beliefs is not commendable at all. By not opposing fantastic thinking, especially when it is used as an excuse to cause harm to our fellow humans, we atheists become complicit in that harm. We need to champion realistic and clear thinking and not shy away from criticizing belief systems that cause wars and death to innocent humans.
Here is a prime example of how superstitious thinking can cause real harm to the innocent.
Human sacrifice is on the increase in Uganda according to a government spokesman. This barbaric crime is directly linked to rising levels of development and prosperity, and an increasing belief that witchcraft can help people get rich quickly. Witch doctors claim they have clients who regularly capture children and bring their blood and body parts to be consumed by spirits. One witch doctor confessed for the first time to having murdered about 70 people, including his own son.
According to media reports, the witch doctors revealed that some of their clients capture other people’s children and bring the heart and the blood directly to them to take to the spirits. They are brought in small tins and are placed under a tree from which the voices of the spirits are coming. Clients come on average three times a week, with all that the spirits asks them to bring. The witch-doctors deny any direct involvement in murder or incitement to murder. They claim that spirits speak directly to their clients.
Witch doctors are paid about 500,000 Ugandan shillings, equivalent of about $260 for a consultation. The head of the Anti-Human Sacrifice and Trafficking Task Force in Uganda, assistant commissioner Moses Binoga of the Ugandan police, said that witch doctors operate in a network and have bosses who give instructions and receive the bulk of payment made by clients. The bosses involve in one of five or six witch-doctor protection rackets operating in the country.
The Assistant commissioner went on to say that the senior ones extort money from lower people because they deal in illegal things. He said that police had opened 26 murder cases in 2009, in which the victim appeared to have been ritually sacrificed, compared with just three cases in 2007. He also said that they have about 120 children and adults reported missing whose fate they have been unable to trace. They cannot rule out that they may be victims of human sacrifice, he said. (Source-Newstime Africa) (Hat-tip to @SkeptInquiry on Twitter for the link)
We can see a pattern here that is common to many religions. A persuasive and charismatic charlatan realizes they can get rich by getting the gullible to believe their conveniently unprovable premise that misfortune and eternal punishment will be visited on anyone who doesn’t join their cult and surrender their money, possessions and their good sense to the leader. It’s nothing more than a scam, sadly protected from criticism and exposure by claiming to be a religion. Even the most progressive societies are reluctant to challenge any belief system that hides behind the label of “religious belief”.
If you are a passive atheist who doesn’t think it’s worthwhile to openly criticize supernatural and superstitious thinking, I would ask that you consider the possibility that your reticence is what allows witch doctors to sacrifice children to ward off evil spirits free of condemnation. By thinking that it’s their right to believe in witchcraft if they want, the tolerant fail to protest the effect of their superstitious thinking on innocent children.
We have thousands of examples of the harm done to humanity in the name of a god or spirit. Atheists owe it to their fellow humans to oppose and speak out against such nonsense, especially when it subjugates and kills.
I’m not a militant atheist, I’m certainly not a dogmatic atheist. But I am an atheist, or as I prefer, a disbeliever. I have no interest in offending the religious, it isn’t my intention to insult. But I am quite opinionated, well-read, a former believer, a spiritual non-believer. I will not back away from or disavow my opinions. If that causes someone offense, if they perceive insult, that’s their problem. They’re always free to ignore me.
I am a humanist (not an official Humanist). I share with all other humans certain traits, behaviors and aspirations. I understand the need and origin of religious belief. But I have no respect for any belief system that divides humans, any dogma that egotistically states that some humans (always humans like themselves) are better than everyone else, more deserving of an enjoyable life, more favored by some divine authority. All of us reading this are humans.
I’ve never been embarrassed to admit that I am a product of evolution, that I share the same origins as every other human on the planet. We should feel no pride or shame for what we are due to nature; we had no choice in our race, our sex, our hair natural hair color or lack of hair. What fairly brings us pride or shame is what we’ve made of ourselves with what nature gave us. We are judged by our attitudes, our beliefs, our statements, our behaviors. Those are what divide and unite us. It’s not our fault I’m white and you’re Black. We can’t help that you’re a woman and I’m a man. But once I’ve formed an opinion about Blacks and women I am fully responsible for those opinions. I don’t accept the excuse that “God made me this way”. You’re perception of god is not to blame for your racism, your smug superiority, your callous disregard for your fellow human. We choose our beliefs, they are our responsibility for better or worse. To own your attitudes and beliefs is to be fully human. To realize that natural handicaps come in all shapes and sizes, aren’t always obvious and say nothing of the human inside is to be fully human.
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.
To accept any brand of theism entails accepting certain assumptions as established fact. All religious belief systems have a creation story. It may be interpreted literally or figuratively, but the underlying assumption that the universe was created by a particular god must be accepted as literal truth and fact to be a member of any particular sect of religious belief.
In rejecting religious belief, atheists also dismiss the presumption that any god created the universe.
However, beyond implying the rejection of religious creation stories, atheism does not provide further guidance as to what to think about the manner in which the universe came in to being. Unlike the vast majority of religions, atheism isn’t a belief system. Atheism is a single point of disagreement with other people over the idea that it’s plausible that any particular god exists. There are many things that atheists believe and disbelieve. The fact we’re atheists only pertains to a single one of the disbeliefs.
Some atheists just don’t give a damn about philosophy or science. They could care less how we got here. They have lives to lead and no time for foolish speculation about things we can’t possibly know at this point in time. We tend to call folks like this practical and level headed.
Others of us are fascinated with understanding how everything works and what it all means. There are many names for us, one or two are complimentary. We follow the findings of scientists, philosophers and thinkers who enlighten us and increase our knowledge, which we expect to result in wisdom.
Accepting scientific explanations about life and the universe and philosophical musings on our place in nature are not obligatory. No atheist is obligated to agree with science. It’s an option, one of many that don’t entail believing in gods.
Scientific explanations of reality are incomplete and never absolute. Some people can’t tolerate a lack of absolutes, so they invent them then proclaim their inventions to be absolute. “It is because we say it is.” Not a convincing argument. My standards for belief and agreement are too high to be satisfied by religious belief. I was a theist, I’ve been there, I’ve walked that road in total sincerity and with unbridled passion for many years. Theism in general and Christianity in particular are not unknown to me. I’ve made their arguments and fought for their validity. I’m completely comfortable with dismissing them as irrelevant in the quest to understand nature on their own merits. Having scientific and philosophical explanations that hold together better and explain nature in terms that don’t require a suspension of good sense and skepticism is an added bonus. It’s nice to have but isn’t the reason for my rejection of belief in gods.
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=c0f6a9c5-d952-4344-80f0-e4eec20e10c4)
![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=91afdda2-7e58-4800-a173-b06176abdc0d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=689a9916-f747-43b5-8ed0-f180a1894189)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=40aedb67-c506-48f1-acf2-96627c9efd8f)
![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=bffe704d-8e76-4845-be06-d67d79a636af)
