TRYING TO JAM THEIR RELIGIOUS DOGMA DOWN OUR COLLECTIVE THROATS AGAIN.
This just came to me and it is disgusting...
The embolden, far-right religious, fundamentalists are at it again. Pushing
their DEEP THROAT religious point of views right down our collective
shallow throats! WHEN WILL IT STOP... CHOKE...CHOKE... When will the
interference with our respiration by obstruction of the larynx or trachea with their born-again philosophy STOP? ...AND HOLY TOLEDO what a captured audience they are performing their dirty deeds upon... AIR FORCE AIRMEN/WOMEN! I hope the enlisted ranks of the Air Force will look at their commanding officers spouting their religious boogie-woogie and think "BEAM ME UP SCOTTIE THE WHOLE WORLD HAS GONE CRAZY...! We can only hope. thinkingblue
PS: Please read the below news item on this "yet another loathsome tactic of the RELIGIOUS RIGHT-WING, FUNDAMENTALIST, EVANGELICAL, BORN AGAIN PATHETIC MOVEMENT!
Your Liberal Student Prayer came today, after reading this last night. God (or whomever) help us all. Beth
THANKS BETH FOR SENDING THIS MY WAY... thinkingblue
Air Force Revises Guidelines on Religious _Expression Officers Are Given More Leeway to Promote Personal Views By ROBERT WELLER, AP
DENVER (Feb. 9) - The Air Force released new guidelines for religious _expression Thursday that no longer caution top officers about promoting their personal religious views.
The revisions were welcomed by conservative Christians, who said the previous rules was too strict and lobbied the White House to change them.
Critics called the revisions a step backward and said they do nothing to protect the rights of most airmen.
The original guidelines were created after allegations that evangelical Christians at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs were imposing their views on others. Some Christian chaplains were accused of telling cadets to warn nonbelievers they would go to hell if they were not born-again Christians.
The guidelines were described as interim, with no date set for their ratification. They were endorsed by The National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, which represents 200 groups.
The revised guidelines say nothing should be understood to limit the substance of voluntary discussions of religion where it is reasonably clear that the discussions are personal, not official, and can be reasonably free of potential coercion.
They also omit a statement in the earlier version that chaplains "should respect the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs."
The new guidelines were applauded by Tom Minnery, vice president for government and policy for Focus on the Family, a conservative ministry in Colorado Springs. WE ALL REMEMBER JAMES DOBSON..thinkingblue
"The guidelines appropriately caution superiors against making comments that could appear to subordinates to be official policy," he said. "With that in mind, they properly state that 'superiors enjoy the same free exercise rights as all other airmen."'
The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, called the new direction "very, very disturbing."
"It seems that everything related to the kind of misconduct we saw at the Air Force Academy has been removed," he said.
Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate, has sued the Air Force, claiming evangelicals are allowed to push their faith on others at the academy. The case is in federal court in Albuquerque, N.M., where Weinstein lives.
BEAM ALL US SANE PEOPLE UP NOW SCOTTIE AND LEAVE THE REST HERE TO WAIT FOR THEIR RAPTURE!!!
02/09/06 20:47 EST
Jake Schoellkopf,Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate, is suing the Air Force,
claiming evangelicals are allowed to push their faith on others
at the academy.
More Coverage:
Read New Guidelines
Talk About It:
Post Thoughts
__________________________________________
claiming evangelicals are allowed to push their faith on others
at the academy.
More Coverage:
Read New Guidelines
Talk About It:
Post Thoughts
__________________________________________
What is the rapture?
The Rapture is believed by many -- perhaps most -- born-again Protestants. They are certain that they, alone, will engage in a mass migration in the near future. They believe that those born-again Christians who have died will have their bodies reconstituted and will ascend through the air, and meet Jesus Christ in the sky. This will be followed by a second mass migration of the born-again who are currently living.
The word "Rapture" comes from the Latin word "Rapare" which means to take away or to snatch out. This would be a remarkable event. Pilots would disappear from planes, truck drivers from their trucks; people from automobiles, etc. Some born-again Christians believe that a family will be eating dinner, when some of the members will rise from their seats, pass through the roof and keep rising through the air.
An associated event is Christ's imminent return (also known as the "second coming" and "parousia"). This has been expected by many Christians for almost 2 millennia. It was described by the Greek word "parousia" (coming, arrival, presence) during the 1st century CE. Justin Martyr introduced the term "second coming" in the 2nd century.
Ever since Christ's death, many Christians have been expecting the second coming in their immediate future. Most Fundamentalist and other conservative Christians believe that The Rapture will occur when Christ first returns towards earth. Most believe that Christ will not actually land or stay on earth at this time; the "real" second coming will occur later, when he returns on a horse leading an army on horseback who will exterminate one third of the earth's population in a massive genocide. It will be numerically the largest mass extermination of humans in history. In terms of the percentage of humans to be killed in a genocide, it will be second only to the flood of Noah.("NOW ISN'T THAT A NICE TOLERANT CHRISTIAN BELIEF? thinkingblue.")
The rapture concept is essentially ignored by most other Christian faith groups. It does not form a part of any other religion. It is dismissed by essentially all liberal Christian theologians. Many Bible handbooks, commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedia do not even list "rapture" in their indices. .
The Rapture is believed by many -- perhaps most -- born-again Protestants. They are certain that they, alone, will engage in a mass migration in the near future. They believe that those born-again Christians who have died will have their bodies reconstituted and will ascend through the air, and meet Jesus Christ in the sky. This will be followed by a second mass migration of the born-again who are currently living.
The word "Rapture" comes from the Latin word "Rapare" which means to take away or to snatch out. This would be a remarkable event. Pilots would disappear from planes, truck drivers from their trucks; people from automobiles, etc. Some born-again Christians believe that a family will be eating dinner, when some of the members will rise from their seats, pass through the roof and keep rising through the air.
An associated event is Christ's imminent return (also known as the "second coming" and "parousia"). This has been expected by many Christians for almost 2 millennia. It was described by the Greek word "parousia" (coming, arrival, presence) during the 1st century CE. Justin Martyr introduced the term "second coming" in the 2nd century.
Ever since Christ's death, many Christians have been expecting the second coming in their immediate future. Most Fundamentalist and other conservative Christians believe that The Rapture will occur when Christ first returns towards earth. Most believe that Christ will not actually land or stay on earth at this time; the "real" second coming will occur later, when he returns on a horse leading an army on horseback who will exterminate one third of the earth's population in a massive genocide. It will be numerically the largest mass extermination of humans in history. In terms of the percentage of humans to be killed in a genocide, it will be second only to the flood of Noah.("NOW ISN'T THAT A NICE TOLERANT CHRISTIAN BELIEF? thinkingblue."
)The rapture concept is essentially ignored by most other Christian faith groups. It does not form a part of any other religion. It is dismissed by essentially all liberal Christian theologians. Many Bible handbooks, commentaries, dictionaries and encyclopedia do not even list "rapture" in their indices. .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some poor pathetic religious, far right-winged, Christian conservative sent me a "now I lay me down to sleep" prayer with new CON-SERVITUDE verses to it.
Some poor pathetic religious, far right-winged, Christian conservative sent me a "now I lay me down to sleep" prayer with new CON-SERVITUDE verses to it.
THE NEW SCHOOL PRAYER
Now I sit me down in school
Where praying is against the rule
For this great nation under God
Finds mention of Him very odd.
If Scripture now the class recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple, orange or green,
That's no offense; it's a freedom scene.
The law is specific, the law is precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God's name is prohibited by the state.
We're allowed to cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.
They've outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen,
And the 'unwed daddy,' our Senior King.
It's "inappropriate" to teach right from wrong,
We're taught that such "judgments" do not belong.
We can get our condoms and birth controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not allowed,
No word of God must reach this crowd.
It's scary here I must confess,
When chaos reigns the school's a mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Amen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought this so asinine and insulting, I decided to write my own verse to
counteract this bigoted, unconscionable and unconstitutional version.
Below is my interpretation of the "NOW I LAY ME DOWN TO SLEEP" Prayer. thinkingblue
Now I sit me down in school,
Where praying aloud is against the rule.
For this great nation under one flag;
Doesn't allow just one belief to brag.
Each person has his own belief system.
The Bill of Rights says we don't have to listen...
To the one imposing his on me.
That is what makes us, a nation free.
Our skin may be black or white even yellow,
We are all equal; there's no odd fellow.
The law is specific, in and of itself
Prayers should be silent kept to oneself.
For voicing one's belief in a public place
May offend someone's faith with a different face
Praying in silence one should pursue.
A belief is personal and belongs only to you.
We're allowed to be different, and still stay free.
That's why we shouldn't try to make others see.
That what we believe is the only "Right One".
And only our religion is "God's Favorite Son".
We can elect a Liberal Senior Queen,
And make a Conservative our Senior King.
It's "appropriate" to believe from the left or the right,
Just like religion...different perceptions are ALRIGHT.
We can get our condoms and learn birth control,
Attaining information makes us better makes us whole.
The Ten Commandments may be right for some,
But others may follow a different "rule of thumb".
I am not afraid here, I must avow,
Because, The Constitution protects me now.
So, to the ruler of the universe,
This silent plea I make:
If I get shot for goodness sake,
for believing in fairness.
Please bring to those that cannot think
a little spark of awareness.
Amen - ThinkingBlue
Where praying aloud is against the rule.
For this great nation under one flag;
Doesn't allow just one belief to brag.
Each person has his own belief system.
The Bill of Rights says we don't have to listen...
To the one imposing his on me.
That is what makes us, a nation free.
Our skin may be black or white even yellow,
We are all equal; there's no odd fellow.
The law is specific, in and of itself
Prayers should be silent kept to oneself.
For voicing one's belief in a public place
May offend someone's faith with a different face
Praying in silence one should pursue.
A belief is personal and belongs only to you.
We're allowed to be different, and still stay free.
That's why we shouldn't try to make others see.
That what we believe is the only "Right One".
And only our religion is "God's Favorite Son".
We can elect a Liberal Senior Queen,
And make a Conservative our Senior King.
It's "appropriate" to believe from the left or the right,
Just like religion...different perceptions are ALRIGHT.
We can get our condoms and learn birth control,
Attaining information makes us better makes us whole.
The Ten Commandments may be right for some,
But others may follow a different "rule of thumb".
I am not afraid here, I must avow,
Because, The Constitution protects me now.
So, to the ruler of the universe,
This silent plea I make:
If I get shot for goodness sake,
for believing in fairness.
Please bring to those that cannot think
a little spark of awareness.
Amen - ThinkingBlue
speech
'I Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is Absolute' September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
John F. Kennedy
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.
Reprinted with permission from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John F. Kennedy
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.
But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.
I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.
But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.
If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.
Reprinted with permission from the John Fitzgerald Kennedy Library.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
QUOTATION OF THE DAY "Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?… Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?…The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness." -George Orwell-"1984"
_______________________LINK OF THE DAY _____________________
MASS MIC
CAROLYNCONNECTION.COM
Warning very Graphic REAL PICTURES OF WAR
posted by thinkingblue at 9:54 AM
<< Home