Skip to main content
Home2012 Articles2011 Articles2010 Articles2009 Articles2008 Articles2007 Articles
 
 2009 Articles 
Saturday, September 12 2009

How do you properly remember a day like September 11th, 2001?

 

It is fitting not just to recall the horrors of the injuries, those scenes of innocent people leaping from the windows of skyscrapers, the death and destruction, but to also remember the selfless sacrifice made by those rushing up smoke-filled stairs to rescue innocent victims, the courage of those who staged a daring rebellion aboard United Flight 93 in their struggle to save others on the ground, and the way our nation came together to support our fellow countrymen with our resources and skills, our money, and most importantly our prayers.

 

And while we remember how those events have forever changed our lives, while we mourn and pray for those whose losses were so much greater than our own, we must also ensure that we never forget the purpose of those who committed the atrocities of September 11th. 

 

The tragic scene that played out on our TV screen and TV screens all across this nation was the result of a cold, calculated plan to kill thousands of innocent people - not because of who they were or anything they had done, but merely because they were citizens of this country - a country founded upon the belief that Almighty God has given to every man, woman, and child the unalienable right to live and breathe free.  We cannot lose sight of the fact that those core, fundamental principles and ideals that define America were exactly what came under attack that morning.

 

September 11th, 2001 taught us again, as generations before us have learned, that the values of life, liberty, freedom, and equality - values that we, like our forefathers, cherish - cannot be taken for granted.  They are bought with a price.  But Americans have never been afraid to pay that price...it's our history.  It's our heritage. 

 

That price was paid on the beaches of Normandy.  It was paid in the waters of the Pacific.  It was paid in the bitter winters of Korea.  That price was paid in the rice patties and jungles of Vietnam.  It was paid in the minefields and sands of Desert Storm.  Our nation, no matter how great, is not invincible.  Therefore, we must always be willing to defend our freedom and our values, no matter the cost. 

 

So on this tragic anniversary, let us do more than just remember the dead.  Let us do more than just honor their passing and memorialize their lives.  Let us do more than think back on our own sorrow, our own pain, our own bitterness.  Let us remember the lessons of September 11th: that heroes are often the most common and simple among us; that the ideals of liberty, hope, and freedom are more than just words, and they are always worth defending; that our way of life and our reliance on our Creator cannot be defeated by any act of violence; that heroism isn't marked by those that wear baseball, basketball or football uniforms, but by those that wear the uniform of their country, their city, or their town; that pledging to continue the fight - that eternal struggle for the freedom of mankind - has become the calling of our time.

 

As Abraham Lincoln looked upon the hills of Gettysburg, the sight of another terrible loss of American life, he spoke these immortal words: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

Lincoln's words, spoken 140 years ago, must resonate with us today.  On September 11th, nearly 3,000 Americans gave the last full measure of their devotion to this country.  No, they didn't do it by leading a cavalry charge, by firing cannons, or affixing bayonets.  They gave their last full measure of devotion to this country by going to work, boarding planes to see friends and family, and exercising the simple but precious freedoms and liberties that define this land.

 

And just as Lincoln called his generation of Americans to resolve that those who fell on the battlefield would not have died in vain, we today must call all Americans to recommit to the great task remaining before us - to preserve, protect, and defend this country, its ideals, its principles, its heritage, and its hope...so that those who perished on that horrible day shall not have died in vain.  When we do that, we have truly honored the legacy of September 11th.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 11:38 pm   |  Permalink   |  54 Comments  |  Email
Comments:
Freedom is what defines America. To the extent that we've surrendered our freedom out to fear, the terrorists have succeeded. We must remember the fallen and let their legacy be a reminder of the freedoms we still have. Rest in piece.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/13/2009 13:44:12
Forgive my poor spelling: Rest in *peace*.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/13/2009 13:45:16
Wonderful article, Pete. It's a shame that those of us that want to preserve the founding principles of this nation are fighting against many in our own government. Many want us to look to the government instead of God and each other. Many in our government want to deny the right to life to the weakest among us. That is the most basic of all our rights. I pleadge to join you in fighting the Culture War in order to honor those that have fallen. It is the least I can do! God helping us, we will be victorious.
Posted by vcamatt on 09/13/2009 21:30:03
"Many in our government want to deny the right to life to the weakest among us." And still others believe the right to life ends at birth...
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/14/2009 16:30:41
Pete you do realize that your headline about 2 MILLION people turning out at Washington is blatantly false, right? Don't take my word for it though. Do some research, it was closer to 70,000. Show us some of that integrity and issue a correction. Or don't and confirm that this blog is not worth reading.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 08:29:48
Ah yes, dear friend NGav, my excruciatingly fastidious critic (although if you were truly just a detailed oriented kinda guy you might note the difference between a headline and a caption, but nonetheless). I will happily change the number as I was basing it off of early reports from FreedomWorks. It appears that the number was closer to 500,000-1,000,000 (check this site: http://spectator.org/blog/2009/09/14/finally-an-official-estimate-o). Your number of 70,000 isn't quite accurate either, friend. But thanks for maintaining your committment to always finding something to disagree about!
Posted by peterheck on 09/16/2009 12:58:35
Thank you for the correction, Pete. I'm a contentious guy but in all fairness, pointing out an error upwards of 1 million is legitimate criticism, is it not? We won't agree on a number, but even the Spectator's wishful estimate wouldn't make the Tea Tantrum unprecedented. If you want to see what 2 million people actually look like, just flip back to Obama's inauguration. What a day! :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 14:40:35
NGav, I know you love to chastise anyone that responds to your comment without getting your point. Therefore, could you explain what you mean before I address what I think you mean. I wouldn't want to be guilty of misunderstanding you.
Posted by vcamatt on 09/16/2009 16:06:55
Tea Tantrum? Really? You surprise me sometimes, NGav. A bunch of well-behaved, clean, freedom-loving Americans are throwing tantrums when they want to hold on to their liberties and stop the onslaught of government intervention into their homes, businessses, and states? I don't understand why you would be hostile towards that.
Posted by peterheck on 09/16/2009 16:57:33
Uh-oh, ngav! check this out...the only scholarly report out there: http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen Not only was the 2 million pretty close to the accurate 1.7 million actual number (much closer than your pathetic 70,000), but it also was FAR more than your 900,000 Obama attendance! Inconvenient when the facts get in the way of a guy who pretends to be a "fact-checker" of Peter Heck! Since Heck will be too classy to ask for it, I will: you should issue a correction or prove you aren't worth reading.
Posted by Observer on 09/16/2009 17:59:55
Hi Observer. I followed up on it and it's not a scholarly paper. Scholarly papers are published in academic journals after *peer review* by qualified scholars with relevant expertise. This paper was simply uploaded to the internet by a Zac Moilanen, a student and apparently an employee for reslife. It could be right, it could be wrong, but until it is has been fact-checked, it has no more credibility than Loose Change and the other amateur productions which also appeared to make sense until they were debunked. So before I grovel on my knees before you, I'll await and see if the facts check out. Until then I'll stick with the estimates from credible authorities. Thank you though.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 18:43:42
C'mon, a liberal can't have a little fun, Pete? I do appreciate that these upset people have good intentions - after all many of them sincerely believe the President is a Muslim radical communist Stalinist Nazi (take your pick). If, in reality, Obama were even some of the things they say about him, I would be protesting too. But it's just a little hard to take people seriously when they are so clueless. I applaud their motivation to protest, their generally good intentions, and their relatively good behavior. But I won't humor the disinformation upon which so much of this movement is built.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 18:56:44
Vcamatt, not sure I understand your request. You can take all my comments on this article at face value. If it's my first third comment you're confused about, it's referring to the many activists, lobbyists and political operatives who are working to undermine healthcare reform without offering any solution to our broken healthcare system. I'm referring to the people who want to maintain the status quo despite the abysmal infant mortality rate in America, the millions of Americns with no insurance, the countless insured Americans more who have been stiffed by their own private insurers, etc. Unless said people are completely unaware of what they're doing, they can't be too concerned about the quality of the lives of other Americans.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 19:26:55
Don't get me wrong though, I'm not ragging on doctors. We have the best doctors in the world, not to be mistaken with the best healthcare system in the world, although the two often are.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 19:42:04
Seriously last comment for now, this one for Observer. Those credible sources I was talking about were the Associated Press, WSJ, Fox News, and ABC, ALL OF WHICH estimated the 9/12 attendance to be in the *tens of thousands,* not 2 million. My math is a little dusty but that appears to be 2 orders of magnitude lower than the estimates that have gotten you so excited.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/16/2009 19:50:12
Honestly, NGav, my biggest complaint about you would have to be that you consistently violate the same standards you attempt to hold others to. You know that I think you're a smart guy and you really make a lot of us think harder about our beliefs...and I appreciate that. But it is very frustrating when you don't abide by the same principles you expect in others. The most recent example is your utter misunderstanding of what the TEA Parties are about. Obama is the face of big government right now, to be sure. Surely you don't believe that is "disinformation." These folks are protesting being overtaxed, over regulated, and deprived of their freedom (economic and otherwise).
Posted by peterheck on 09/17/2009 08:23:53
They're not mistaken, they're not misled, they're not misinformed about what the current policy agenda in Washington is doing to our freedom. Are there fringe elements that include some loonies? Of course. But surely a lib doesn't want to start comparing loonies and suggesting that they represent the whole? I'd encourage you to do some research yourself and find out what this movement is about before you cast aspersions. That's all.
Posted by peterheck on 09/17/2009 08:24:12
Birthers, deathers - these people are not on the fringe of the 9/12 movement. I'm aware of the disinformation out there. I'm familiar with Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, their agendas, their propaganda. As for casting aspersions, that's pretty much the point of this blog, isn't it? If you taught us anything in your atheist-bashing rant, it's that Peter Heck does not need even a loose understanding of people before categorically attacking millions of them. It really gives me no pleasure saying this, but I am growing tired of your insinuations and your oblique jabs. If you're going to label a person, at least have the fortitude to do it plainly, stand by it, and make sure the label doesn't apply more aptly to yourself.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/17/2009 11:21:46
Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity love to hide behind libertarian rhetoric - it's easy. But the hypocrisy there is glaring. If libertarianism was their top priority, they would have been attacking Bush's anti-libertarian agenda, not just dogging Dems for the past 8 years. The far right is hiding behind a facade that is culturally agreeable yet politically dishonest. "Hey look, I'm wearing the American flag. Trust everything I say because I love America!" Not to mention, this "patriotic revival" is being funded by millions and millions from insurance and other private interests that want to continue raping this country. Taking the rhetoric at face value would be as silly as trusting every infomercial you see on TV.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/17/2009 11:47:25
Look up the Brooks Brothers riot. Look up astroturfing. This is loud and ugly but it's nothing new.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/17/2009 11:49:56
OK that's it for now. There is much to be debated here, I'd like to stop us from debating each others' character. Neither of us enjoy being called hypocrites, and I apologize for implying such in this thread. You can even take the last shot at me, if you want. This post is an attempt in good faith to move forward with the issues at hand.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/17/2009 11:59:26
Not interested in taking a shot at you. I'm more interested in hearing, despite whether you like Beck or Hannity...or me for that matter...do you not agree that the current leadership in Washington is leading us towards more taxation, more regulation, and less freedom?
Posted by peterheck on 09/17/2009 14:20:22
"If you're going to label a person, at least have the fortitude to do it plainly, stand by it, and make sure the label doesn't apply more aptly to yourself." Do I not? I think you're referring to my previous column, correct? I said it is mind-boggling that a person can see the intricate design of humanity and not follow that through to its logical conclusion: that there was a Designer. I said it plainly, and I stand by it.
Posted by peterheck on 09/17/2009 14:27:16
And I hate to say it, but there you go again. I will not suffer your hypocritical jabs. You cast aspersions but get mad when you perceive someone else doing it to you. You belittle, but get mad when you perceive someone else doing it to you. You categorically mock and deride millions, but get mad when you perceive someone else doing it to you. You oversimplify, but get mad when you perceive someone else doing it to you. Are you picking up on the pattern and seeing why it is hard to know the rules you demand when you refuse to abide by them?
Posted by peterheck on 09/17/2009 14:28:42
The "agenda" of Hannity and Beck? What exactly is that "agenda," sir? When did freeing the people from government control and oppression become an "agenda," sir? And if it is, that's an "agenda" I'm interested in being a part of.
Posted by patriot12 on 09/17/2009 15:03:01
I think Heck's got you on this one, N.Gavelis. You really need a tougher skin if you're going to discuss these kind of topics with folks. You have suggested there is no more sense in believing in the Christian God than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you don't consider that "categorically attacking millions," I don't know what it would be. If you dish it, you better be able to take it. If you can't, better not dish it.
Posted by N-Force on 09/17/2009 17:43:42
Patriot12 writes, "When did freeing the people from government control and oppression become an "agenda," sir?" Apparently ever since Americans have decided to replace the Constitution with an organization that is intent upon imposing their agendas of power & control upon their citizens.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/17/2009 19:12:58
"You have suggested there is no more sense in believing in the Christian God than the Flying Spaghetti Monster." That's not what I said, although I could agree with that statement. A mass-murdering yet "perfect" god may be less likely than a deity made out of pasta. One contradicts itself; the other doesn't. My skin is quite thick, btw, at least relatively speaking. Go to a liberal forum/blog where you are outnumbered 10 to 1 and speak your mind. Let me know how long you last.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/18/2009 10:34:11
David Gardner, Daily Mail, U.K.: "As many as one million people flooded into Washington for a massive rally organised by conservatives claiming that President Obama is driving America towards socialism. The size of the crowd - by far the biggest protest since the president took office in January - shocked the White House." Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html#ixzz0RT83B0Ju Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html#ixzz0RT83B0Ju
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/18/2009 10:37:12
Your logic dictates that we're both hypocrites, Pete. And you never stood by said "logical conclusion" because you never supported it to begin with. Here's my take on your article: "Childbirth is amazing! Boy is the world complex and neat! Therefore my god exists!" Commenters challenged every argument you attempted to make, and every flawed assumption you relied upon, and you failed to adequately rebut any of them. You took the liberty to summarize the literally hundreds of arguments (or were there 2 million?) but you didn't actually refute a single one. Let me ask you this Pete, could any amount of evidence or reason convince you that your god exists only in the minds of believers?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/18/2009 10:42:46
Also, Pete, I notice you said you wouldn't take the last shot...and then proceed to call me a hypocrite for the Nth time. So again, you say something and then fail to stand by it. I genuinely wanted to stop the jab-fest but we can keep it going if you want.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/18/2009 10:57:02
Funny how Observer never came back. I wonder if he's looking for more "scholarly" papers, i.e., unsourced speculation by an undergrad who didn't even get the pictures right. Maybe you guys can help him out. How do the authoritative news sources unanimously conclude that there were tens of thousands of people in a place, whereas you guys think there were 10 or even a 100 times more people? This truly interests me, because it's rare that we can actually quantify wishful thinking.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/18/2009 11:09:31
The only ones apparently making the accusation that conservatives did not confront Bush whenever he promoted an over-reaching government are liberals. I chalkthat up to not having any first-hand clue what conservative idealists were and are talking about concerning Bush's policies. But that doesn't keep them from posting comments where there is no evidence to back them up.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/18/2009 13:31:48
One of N Gav's grotesque blunders is his blathering about those protesting Obamacare, and government takeover of private sector liberty in general, are seeking to maintain a status quo. Anything but. We seek the kind of change that has succeeded in the past and will succeed into the future. When one looks at the healthcare debate, it is about health INSURANCE, not health CARE. So, make new entrants into the sector easier, not harder. Economic competition has a decided tendency to weed out poor companies.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/18/2009 13:59:23
There are already private sector groups that band together to share medical costs among members. Although they have been proving successful, according the major bill under consideration & debate, they will not survive the provisions of the bill. So instead of helping Americans whoare proactively solving these issues, this bill will create hardships for them.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/18/2009 14:04:35
Actually, those referred to above can be regarded as Constitutionalists more than libertarians. There are overlaps, of course (think venn diagrams), but there are significant differences.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/18/2009 14:16:27
I know your M.O. is to carbon-copy the Obama approach of being bitterly partisan while maintaining this facade that you are above it all. It gets a little old, but I do appreciate your comments and thoughts regardless of growing tired of those antics. In terms of this latest tiff, I hate to be the one to point this out, but you started the jab fest...on a column post about honoring the lives of those lost on 9/11!
Posted by peterheck on 09/18/2009 15:04:26
NGav, I asked you to clarify what you meant when you that "others believe the right to life ends at birth..." I couldn't have imagined that you were arguing that those of us that don't want Obamacare are guilty of bringing about the death of people. Wow! Please tell me that's not what you are arguing.
Posted by vcamatt on 09/18/2009 16:07:54
Don't be afraid to ask questions when you don't know something, Pete. I've never claimed to be nonpartisan or "above-it-all." Like everyone here, my allegiance is to the United States, its freedom, and its wellbeing, and I believe these ends will be better served by Dems than by the GOP. This is a reluctant, lesser-of-two-evils choice on my part, but I've never concealed it. Now run away, Pete. Go hide behind some flag pins. Take no credit for the jab-fest that you took equal part in. Forget your many backhanded comments and veiled insults. Pretend YOU are the one who is above it all, and project your own shortcomings on the liberal. Do what you do best.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/19/2009 13:00:33
From what I understand, no one is actually "charged" with estimating crowd size at these events. The National Parks service says they aren't funded for it. So what authority, exactly, do all the sources mentioned have to make an "accurate" estimate of any kind? What is the quantitative evidence they have provided?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/19/2009 14:45:17
Hi Matt, that wasn't what I was arguing. I believe the tea partiers are well-meaning but sorely misinformed and misguided. They are being used a tool by political operatives and healthcare lobbyists to keep the status quo. That is not their intent, but their unwitting effect. They are being manipulated, and I don't blame them for doing what they do, because if I believe what they believe, I would be doing the same things. It's the healthcare lobbyists and politcal operatives that are deliberately working to maintain the status quo. This is guilty party I was talking about. Thank you, matt, for having the patience to ask me what I meant rather than just assuming. :)
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/19/2009 21:50:42
"Go hide behind some flag pins." What in the world does that even mean, NGav? Are we in junior high? Seriously? "Take no credit for the jab-fest that you took equal part in. Forget your many backhanded comments and veiled insults." I didn't say I wasn't jabbing at you at all! I just pointed out you started it and then started complaining about it! "Pretend YOU are the one who is above it all, and project your own shortcomings on the liberal." Again, what in the world are you talking about? I'm not the one acting like I get my feelings hurt everytime you take a dig at my beliefs. Your insecurity is astounding sometimes.
Posted by peterheck on 09/19/2009 21:54:34
"my allegiance is to the United States, its freedom, and its wellbeing, and I believe these ends will be better served by Dems than by the GOP." If you believe that freedom in the United States is best served by the current Democratic Party, NGav, you are blissfully ignorant of nearly every policy proposal they are currently advancing. I don't believe you are. So, unsolicited, here's my analysis of you: you cringe at the economic socialism being offered by current Democrats, but you loathe social conservatives so much you can't bring yourself to align with them. If that is the case, is your first allegiance truly to the freedom of the U.S.? Just askin...
Posted by peterheck on 09/19/2009 21:58:42
NG, the same can easily be said (and I believe with more credibility) about your opposition to the TEA parties. I've been an active participant in the local TEA parties where I live. I know all of the people who have participated in developing the events and organizing. Not a single one of them (myself included) did so at the prompting of any "political operatives". I don't know any health care lobbyists nor do I care to. It's just so hard for people like you to believe that it's real that you have to come up with the speculative consiratorial nonsense that you do. Why not address the objections raised by the TEA parties and their participants then the massive red herring fallacy that you're engaging in?
Posted by Asburystrider on 09/21/2009 01:00:25
To be honest, Pete, my political views are not as simple as they once were. The focus has drifted away from ideology and into pragmatism. Although I appreciate your honest attempt at assessing my views, they definitely aren't summarized in that sentence or in any one sentence. As a matter of principle (not loathing), I am not a social conservative. There is too much cognitive dissonance there: for instance, being against legalizing drugs but for legalizing guns. Libertarianism is the only value system I can fundamentally respect but it doesn't have a chance in Washington.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/21/2009 16:14:11
Again Strider I believe most of these people are well-intentioned. I have no problem with the people who object to big government and high taxes in principle, however much of the zeal is fueled not by principle but by misinformation. This happens when you only listen to talk radio and Fox News, when you have a strictly unilateral understanding of the issues. Notice I haven't branded these people as racists, homophobes, or anything like that. THAT would be a red herring.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/21/2009 16:34:20
Oh give me a break. Calling TEA party participants "manipulated", "misinformed", "misguided" stooges of "political operatives" and "health care lobbyists" is not shifting the subject? That's the most disingenuous thing I've heard you say thus far, and that's saying something. You may not have called them "racists, homophobes, or anything like that", but it's still a massive red herring. Again, switching the argument in this conpiratorial manner from the content of the disagreement to the supposedly diabolical nature of the participation is definitionally a red herring.
Posted by Asburystrider on 09/21/2009 22:35:15
From observations concerning your self-revelations, N. Gavelis, my conclusion is that you are an immoralist given the value system you embrace.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/22/2009 08:27:26
"Immoralist." LOL. Well I certainly don't share your values, that's for sure, and you are the kind of guy who pretends your values are the only values. It does not surprise me that someone with your narrow scope of vision would come to a sanctimonious, boneheaded conclusion like that. You get bonus points for making me laugh out loud.
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 11:03:16
I don't know what you're looking for, Strider. Here's a video demonstrates my "red herring", though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFCBeKcd-Wk
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 11:09:23
Also, how is dismissing something out of hand as "conspiratorial" any different from a red herring? With both, you are ignoring rather than refuting the claims of your opponent. Maybe you can clarify how that is admissable to you whereas my analysis of the teabaggers is not?
Posted by N. Gavelis on 09/22/2009 11:45:12
Yeah, here's all the clarity you need. The nature of your red herring is conspiratorial. Call my statement inflammatory if you wish but it's a commentary on the nature of your logical fallacy, not an element of the argument itself. I can't very well point out the illogical nature of your points without pointing out the illogical nature of your points. Or is that somehow a red herring?
Posted by Asburystrider on 09/22/2009 15:58:13
Elsewhere, N. Gavelis wrote: "You guys should go to Burning Man. It makes Woodstock look like a joke. You guys would be absolutely terrified, probably wouldn't last a night, but I had a blast there." So why do you say that we "probably wouldn't last a night" there?
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 11:22:22
N. Gavelis writes, "Well I certainly don't share your values, that's for sure, and you are the kind of guy who pretends your values are the only values." I do not believe that I have ever indicated that my "values are the only values." There are clearly a variety of values. You might have meant to say that my values are the only moral values, but that is not entirely true, either. The values I attempt to project do not come from me; they come from God. Now His values are the only moral values. However, knowing your belief in atheism from other discussions, I would suppose that you suggest that there is no morality or immorality.
Posted by ChucksChants on 09/23/2009 16:39:19

Post comment
Name
 *
Email Address

Message
(max 750 characters)
*
* Required Fields
Note: All comments are subject to approval. Your comment will not appear until it has been approved.

    common sense makes a comeback
    site designed by Keith Parker   --  sign up for Peter Heck Mailing List here