Saw Julia Sweeney (SNL) on cspan over the weekend talking about how great it is to finally be "out" as an athiest. She had special praise for gay and lesbian groups who sponsor athiest seminars and workshops.
Posted on 07/16/2007 4:13:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
Years ago I had a series of debates with the literary scholar Stanley Fish. Our topic was political correctness. I portrayed Fish as the grand deconstructor of Western civilization, and he fired back in There’s No Such Thing As Free Speech, several chapters of which are an answer to my arguments. As I got to know Fish, however, I recognized that although he defended some of the practices being promoted in the name of multiculturalism and diversity, he was not himself a politically correct thinker. We became friends, and in 1992 he and his wife attended my wedding.
Fish has of late been demonstrating his political incorrectness by writing critically of separation of church and state, and also by challenging leading atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christoher Hitchens. Indeed Fish uses his detailed knowledge of Milton as well as his famous skills of literary deconstruction to show the emptiness of the atheist arguments.
In his New York Times blog, Fish takes up the argument advanced by Dawkins and company that belief in God is a kind of evasion. According to this argument, we avoid the responsibilities of this life by putting our hopes in another life. Religion makes us do crazy things.
Fish takes as an example of the Harris-Hitchens-Dawkins critique the behavior of Christian in Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. Christian becomes aware that he is carrying a huge burden on his back (Original Sin) and he wants to get rid of it. Another fellow named Evangelist tells him to "flee the wrath to come." Evangelist points Christian in the direction of a shining light. But Christian can't clearly see the light. Still, he begins to run in that direction. Bunyan describes his wife and children who "began to cry after him to return, but the man put his fingers in his ears and ran on, crying Life! Life! Eternal Life!"
For Harris, Hitchens and Dawkins, this is precisely the kind of crazy behavior that religion produces. Here is a man abandoning his duties and chasing after something he isn't even sure about. Fish writes, "I have imagined this criticism coming from outside the narrative, but in fact it is right there on the inside." Bunyan not only has Christian's wife and children imploring him to return, he also has Christian's friends struggling to make sense of his actions.
Fish comments, "What this shows is that the objections Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens make to religious thinking are themselves part of religious thinking. Rather than being swept under the rug of a seamless discourse, they are the very motor of that discourse." Citing the atheists' portrait of religion as unquestioning obedienece, Fish writes, "I know of no religious framework that offers such a complacement picture of the life of faith, a life that is always presented as a minefield of difficulties, obstacles and temptations that must be negotiated by a limited creature in the effort to become aligned with the Infinite."
Fish observes that while religious people over the centuries have dug deeply into the questions of life, along come our shallow atheists who present arguments as if they first thought of them, arguments that Christians have long examined with a seriousness and care that is missing in contemporary atheist discourse.
In a follow-up article, Fish deepens his inquiry by looking at the kind of evidence that atheists like Hawkins and Harris present for their “scientific” outlook. Harris, for example, writes that “there will probably come a time when we will achieve a detailed understanding of human happiness and of ethical judgments themselves at the level of the brain.” Fish asks, what is this confidence based on? Not, he notes, on a record of progress. Science today can no more explain ethics or human happiness than it could a thousand years ago.
Still, Harris says that scientific research hasn’t panned out because the research is in the early stage and few of the facts are in. Fish comments, “Of course one conclusion that could be drawn is that the research will not pan out because moral intuitions are not reducible to phyhsical processes. That may be why so few of the facts are in.”
Fish draws on examples from John Milton to make the point is that unbelief, no less than belief, is based on a perspective. If you assume that material reality is all there is, then you are only going to look for material explanations, and any explanations that are not material will be rejected out of hand. Fish’s objection is not so much that this is dogmatism but that it is dogmatism that refuses to recognize itself as such. At least religious people like Milton have long recognized that their core beliefs are derived from faith.
Fish concludes that “the arguments Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens mostly rely on are just not good arguments.” We can expect our unbelieving trio to react with their trademark scorn, but Fish has scored some telling points.
OK, I’m convinced, I’m not an atheist anymore! ;)/jk
I can forgive a lot, but "Bostonian" is over my threshold.
atheist was asked what he would say when he found himself at the pearly gates after he died, looking at st. peter. his answer; Whoops!
Let’s not heap too much praise on Stanley Fish: he is one of the pre-eminent post-modernist philosophers who believes that there’s no such thing as absolute, verifiable truth in anything, anywhere.
Or more precisely, your athiesm is just an unsupported faith in a solely material existence without a God.
Christians worship what they know since they have been touched by the Holy Spirit; so they have actual experienced evidence for their beliefs. The athiest is generally making an argument from silence; but the silence is solely his own. If he is arguing to a Christian there is no silence, no lack of concrete evidence at all on the Christian’s part, he knows that God exists because God has touched him.
Oh, yea of little faith!
Do ya think he would verify his philosophy as absolutely true?
I was expecting the “Stanley Fish” to be a well preserved marine fossil.
Ah, those were great fun! :-) I wasn't able to attend, but I followed the correspondence and the articles quite avidly.
If you assume that material reality is all there is, then you are only going to look for material explanations, and any explanations that are not material will be rejected out of hand. Fish’s objection is not so much that this is dogmatism but that it is dogmatism that refuses to recognize itself as such.
This is actually a strawman, since it is presuming that atheists "assume" that material reality is all there is, when actually, they don't necessarily make that as an assumption. They might conclude such--and at the same time view all new information openly. Just because geologists believed in Continental Drift doesn't mean they absolutely rejected Plate Tectonic theory when it came out.
Also, note that there's nothing wrong with looking for a material explanation prior to a miraculous one. I think that the germ theory of disease is far better than the evil spirit one, and believing it doesn't mean that the germ theory is "assumed" without evidence.
I have great respect for Mr. D'Souza, but I think he falls way short on this column. I would, however, like to see a discussion between him and Dr. Fish.
Why the Christian God is Impossible
by Chad Docterman
Introduction
Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.
Proving a Universal Negative
It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.
I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.
Defining YHWH
Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.
God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.
One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.
Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection
What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.
Perfection Begets Imperfection
But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.
What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.
The Freewill Argument
The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.
Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.
Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.
Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?
The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.
All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering
God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.
Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins
God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.
Belief More Important Than Action
Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.
Perfection's Imperfect Revelation
The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.
No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.
Contradictory Justice
One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.
Contradictory History
The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?
Unfulfilled Prophecy
The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.
The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.
The Omniscient Changes the Future
A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
The Omniscient is Surprised
A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.
We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.
The Conclusion of the matter
I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.
Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:
"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."
If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.
As for me and my house, we shall choose reality
Ironically, in each case the individual's testimony is consistent with his experience; for one the existence of God is proven fact, but for the other there is no experiential evidence, and the best perspective such a one can muster on such a basis is agnosticism.
As a Christian I have no beef with the agnostic on that basis, though we may disagree on other points. However, I do have rather a bone to pick with the atheist who generalizes from his own absence of evidence a universal evidence of God's absence.
Is Stanley Fish a “critical” scholar? They just treat it all as a word game . . . find the premise, demonstrate that the argument does not fully flow from the premise or contradicts it. In this case the premise is that the athiest looks at the evidence and the Christian does not; Fish shows the reverse. It’s just logic and argument, the difference in the crit and the normal is that the crit hangs their hat on no premise they will defend, so thier analytical tool isn’t ever used against them. They attack only and express their preferences only through what they attack.
Just because geologists believed in Continental Drift doesn't mean they absolutely rejected Plate Tectonic theory when it came out.
Interestingly plate tectonics were swiftly accepted. I doubt atheists think thoughts are material things.
Could you please come over here?
Yep.
Psychology thinks that all thoughts, emotions, etc are simply chemical processes - hence all the psycho-social drugs prescribed to anyone who is other than what they want or society wants them to be.
Add in psychiatry there too.
Ha, you get it. It’s funny how those who do not believe in absolutes believe their own arguments absolutely. :)
Yep.
Glad the article didn't leave you speechless. I actually had writtent "stumbled" in quotes because I didn't physically stumble onto it and changed my mind figuring nobody would take it literally that I physically stumbled on it.. It came up in a search.
Psychology thinks
I'm astounded. I never knew that before and would think it impossible.;-)
“A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.”
“Sailing around the world” was once “impossible.”
Any philosphy or logos that leads someone to this word is faulty.
Let's start with this little bit of idiocy:
An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.
Anyone with a kid in college knows that this is indeed quite possible.
Its called "love".
I find your response very interesting. My post had nothing to do with the physical.
I find your response very interesting. My post had nothing to do with the physical.
My response was my thoughts as I original wrote the sentence, and in particular the word 'stumble'. In my search at Google I wasn't looking for the article or any other God-refuting article.
You came across it. How much do you agree with it? All of it, some of it or none, but you’re throwing it in here to generate discussion?
I guess, just as a matter of knowing how we sit, I’d like (and I’m sure others would like) you to fill us in on your position.
The reality is that every knee shall bow.
Until you die.
Yeesh. I myself doubt the existence of any god, and feel about as certain as one can that the Jesus story is pretty much fable. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with believers (aside from Mohammedans), so long as they leave me the hell alone. Similarly, I find myself somewhat embarrassed by the recent spate of books, TV appearances, lectures etc. by all of these atheists - to me, they’re no different than the Pat Robertsons of the world - a bunch of evangelists for things they can’t possibly hope to prove. And in my experience, trying to persuade believers is like reading Sanskrit to a pony - there’s just no point whatsoever.
So the question: Why do we (on any side) even bother? Why not just live and let live?
My Bad,
Side note for anyone to see-
I walked away from the computer for my shower before work. As I was walking, I was thinking of this thread. I start my shower and do what I usually end up doing there: contimplate metaphysics and logos.
I had one of my more stunning realizations.
People claiming to be “atheist” or “Christian” or anything at all, are in fact supposing (even, presupposing) the order of our normal logic as far as I’m familiar.
When someone inquires about your association with an event (for simplicity’s sake, lets make it a crime), the first question, whether stated or not, is “Did you do it?”
From the varying degrees of answers and how it plays out from there, we eventually work through the mechanics of the event, and go to the “why”.
This is of interest to me at this time because it builds in my mind this image of a sophist musing over the pet question of human nature. “Why?” And a child’s first questions on an occurance they do not understand, is no different.
When we ask “Why” by our modern reasoning, we are presuposing we have the pertaining information. “Who, how, when, what...” *Where* is usually unimportant in philosophy, but in criminal justice it can be a lifetime in jail.
But this still begs in the back of my mind- if we suppose our current rationales are overall the right way to go about things, then that means that by proclaiming a side on issue of “God?” we assume we have already burned through and can account for all the other questions first- and that we would be lead to the same answer.
By assuming existance or nonexistance of God, we assume we have mastered all other streams of thought into the issue. At least, according to standard laws.
Incomplete babble, I’m sure, but I needed to get it out there. Maybe someone will be able to help me build on it?
Here, here! This is exactly the achilles heel of the relatavists, and atheists. The assertion that there are no absolutes is, itself, an absolute. It idividing by zero philisophically. It is absurd. It is akin to the ranting of the babbling street-person, or hobo, as they were fomerly known. It cannot be true. More importantly, it cannot be evaluated as true or false.
You surround yourself and enable moral relativism. This is the slow death of the world. It is a shame men like you think they are so smart.
That's simply conjecture based on absolutely nothing; as is the remainder of the article.
Wow, that was a silly article you stumbled on.
Jesus says, “Come unto me all ye that labor and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your soul.”
Dylan Thomas says, “Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”
St. John says, “And they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores, and repented not of their deeds.”
God says, “I am, THE I AM!..... it is done!”
The fool says in his heart, “there is no God”.
First the existence of God is not a proven fact. Secondarily, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that an Omniscient God cannot exist, because it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
Atheism is the wrong term. Do you call someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus an anticlaus? The burden of proof is on those who believe in Santa Claus to prove that he exists.
hear, hear!
>>Do ya think he would verify his philosophy as absolutely true?
No, he would not claim it to be true. Fish is a sort of Nietzscheanized pragmatist - he would claim an particular belief to be useful before he would claim it to be true.
Common fallacy to state.
It’s intersting to note that the common accepted idea of Hell is the absence of Reason.
The absence of Reason also supposes the existance of it. Pure reason. Reason even beyond our comprehention.
It’s not hard to imagine being ignorant of laws of nature. We, as a species, have spent the overwhelming majority of our existance learning how ignorant we are.
Lack of understanding is not proof of not being in a situation. Just because we can’t comprehend (yet) momentum versus position, does not mean it is “impossible” Only “uncomprehendable”.
The fact of the matter is- we don’t know all the facts about existance yet, so how can either side boast claims to proof of anything? *Especially* the people who venture to say there is no God. An unexplained origin is at least an origin. “No God” supposes we are then looking for proof of nothing... which in our own limited growth translates to “Why the hell should we even care?”
The answer comes back- because there is an origin, and you will know it!
It’s not “What” or “Why” of God doing things that bothers atheists, but “Who”.
Stanley Fish as former head of the English Department paved the way for the deconstruction and destruction of great literature and of Duke University. He truly is the father of lies. The fact he is right on this point does not convince me of anything about Stanley Fish or atheism.
Regardless, I would point out to you that there is such a thing as subjective evidence...evidence that is entirely sufficient for me, but not at all adequate for you. For example, let's say that you once met Paul Newman at a dinner party. You tell someone "I once met Paul Newman at a dinner party," and they challenge you with "Oh yeah? Prove it!"
Your experience is adequate to prove to you that you once met Paul Newman; you can remember he was drinking red wine, and he told a story about Robert Redford. However, your experience is utterly inadequate as proof to anyone else who didn't happen to also be at that same party. This is what I mean by experiential evidence.
So when you say "First, the existence of God is not a proven fact," you may be correct in the classical sense of the word "proof," in that the existence of God has not been logically proven to an objective standard. You may also be correct according to your personal experience, which contains within it no evidence for the existence of God, let alone proof.
However, you cannot assess others' experiential evidence.
I agree. Atheism seems to be a logical fallacy, an argument from silence, or poor abductive reasoning (what of the order in the universe, and the fact that the first mover must be outside of time and so supernatural?). Agnosticism is a more intellectually and personally defensible view.
There, now its correct.
To believers it is a proven fact through direct experience of God.
Secondarily, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves that an Omniscient God cannot exist, because it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
OK, I'll bite. Heisenberg was a Christian. How does a theory in science disprove God? Did Heisenberg address what and how God knows at all in his theory or are you just misapplying it? DOH!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.