151. Responding to Tem (130) who wrote: “If you don't respect the Constitution enough to realize that everyone doesn't have to think like you, maybe you should be the one to consider moving.”

In principle, I agree with you. Pragmatically, up to a point, I agree with you.
But, to quote a former US Supreme Court Justice, “The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”
And there are Muslims who advocate “riding the train of democracy” as far as it will take them.

I point these out for two reasons:
(1) There are people and groups who will use their rights, their freedoms, to gain power and then turn around and deny those same rights and freedoms to others. Perhaps you need to read (ore re-read) George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”.

In the early 20th century, evolutionists used the notion of “open debate and healthy skepticism” to win their argument that evolution and creation should both be taught in the classroom. Now, decades later, evolutionists do not want any one to question their theory. Unless you have the “right credentials”. Seems hypocritical!

(No – I am not advocating that creationism be taught in the classroom. But, I do believe that students should be allowed to question evolution, to hold it up to the same standards as other scientific theories.)

(2) Freedom, democracy, republicanism, have never been able to defend themselves. These value systems are not equipped to defend themselves. Our freedoms and rights were secured in a violent struggle involving three military forces (English, Colonial, & French) and a bunch of principled, if not fanatical, rebels. Know any military or rebel force that is “democratic”?


My point is this: Most people do not trust others whose fundamental views and values are radically different from theirs. This is true for people of faith, agnostics, atheists, even “scientists”. Many people of faith do not trust atheists. Your claim that “God does not exit” frightens them.

While I do not agree with them, their fears are not unfounded. Atheist regimes in the past century have a pretty bad history. If they fear that atheists will eventually get what many atheists seek (a religion-free society), then, it is reasonable for them to advocate some positions that seem counter to their other principles.

Again, the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

ray at 1:33PM on Nov 1st 2007

152. Responding to Tem (131)who wrote: "I'd like to see you cite one example from your Bible where Jesus expected someone to use violence to accomplish something."

Technically, you are right. Jesus did not "teach" or "advocate" the use of violence. But he employed violence. Read on...

John 2:13-16 (NIV):
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money.
So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.
To those who sold doves he said, "Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father's house into a market!"

Yeah - he was always a man of non-violence...

ray at 1:42PM on Nov 1st 2007

153. ray:

"In principle, I agree with you. Pragmatically, up to a point, I agree with you.
But, to quote a former US Supreme Court Justice, “The Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.”
And there are Muslims who advocate “riding the train of democracy” as far as it will take them."

Take a look at Diana's post that I was responding to. She believes that all atheists should leave the country. You're pointing out one extreme.

The Bill of Rights isn't a suicide pact, true. There are ways of dealing with people that attempt to undermine it. Removing every Muslim, or every Atheist from the country isn't the answer, nor would removing every Christian.

I know you're not implying that, but in a sense you're defending her statement.

The rest of what you said wasn't a response to the intent of my post, but since you took the time to post it...

:In the early 20th century, evolutionists used the notion of “open debate and healthy skepticism” to win their argument that evolution and creation should both be taught in the classroom. Now, decades later, evolutionists do not want any one to question their theory. Unless you have the “right credentials”. Seems hypocritical!"

Science is based on observable and reproducible facts. There are many reasons why evolution is so well-accepted. One of the great things about science is that you have the ability to disprove any claim! It's not the same with religion.

If you believe evolution is wrong, then you have the ability to attempt to find something with which to prove it wrong, rather than just disagreeing with it because it doesn't match up with the religion that you've chosen.

No scientist that I've ever met (and I've met quite a few) has ever, EVER not wanted someone to question anything. Without questioning, no one would ever truly learn anything. Asking a question implies an intent to learn. Forcing knowledge on someone is next to useless.

No one that I know is upset about someone questioning evolution. They're upset about someone wanting to teach a hypothesis with no solid, observable evidence to back it up next to a theory.

"Freedom, democracy, republicanism, have never been able to defend themselves. These value systems are not equipped to defend themselves."

Freedom isn't a system. Democracy is about as real as true Communism.

How does a "system" (as you've described them) defend itself? The founders of our country did a pretty decent job with checks and balances. This makes rapid change difficult, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

"Our freedoms and rights were secured in a violent struggle involving three military forces (English, Colonial, & French) and a bunch of principled, if not fanatical, rebels."

That it was. Our freedoms could have possibly been secured in a non-violent way as well. Did Canada engage in a violent rebellion to become free from England? Did Australia?

We can't say that the violence was necessary to accomplish our goals. I'm not saying they were wrong to have done what they did, it's much easier to look back then forward.

"Know any military or rebel force that is “democratic”?"

I don't know any current government that is "democratic." Can you name one?

"Most people do not trust others whose fundamental views and values are radically different from theirs."

People who don't trust other people solely because those people believe differently are ignorant and need to learn more about those people. People who know about how other people believe and don't trust them based on the tenets of that belief at least have some justification.

"This is true for people of faith, agnostics, atheists, even “scientists”. Many people of faith do not trust atheists. Your claim that “God does not exit” frightens them."

That's a shame. Their claim that God does exist does not frighten me.

"While I do not agree with them, their fears are not unfounded."

Yes they are.

"Atheist regimes in the past century have a pretty bad history."

There are no pure atheist regimes, just as there are no theist regimes. There were regimes that used atheism as part of their philosophy. That is not the same as them being atheistic. Communist regimes were communist. Not all atheists are like that, and to believe that is ignorant. I'm not saying that you believe that, but someone that does would be.

"If they fear that atheists will eventually get what many atheists seek (a religion-free society), then, it is reasonable for them to advocate some positions that seem counter to their other principles."

It's not reasonable for someone to counter their principles. If it was, then those principles were not effective to begin with.

I have never personally met any atheists that wanted to remove religion from society. Most atheists that I know that have had a stance involving religion just want to keep Church and State separated.

Tem at 6:32PM on Nov 1st 2007

154. ray:

"Technically, you are right. Jesus did not "teach" or "advocate" the use of violence. But he employed violence. Read on..."

Didn't Hitler use that passage to make some of his actions seem to have a Christian context?

The violence there was only implied. Here's where I take note:

"So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle"

It's easy to interpret that as saying that Jesus used the whip to drive the sheep and cattle (both as a modifier of all), and that the humans left with them. Do you have that passage in Greek? Maybe we could look at it and get a better understanding of what they meant.

Tem at 6:38PM on Nov 1st 2007

155. Responding to Tem (134) who wrote: “Take a look at Diana's post that I was responding to. She believes that all atheists should leave the country. You're pointing out one extreme. … Removing every Muslim, or every Atheist from the country isn't the answer, nor would removing every Christian.”

Regarding your debate with Diana, I agree with you. I was just cautioning you on your statement. Taken to an extreme, it can be counter-productive. You latest post (134) suggests no disagreement on that particular point.


You also wrote: “If you believe evolution is wrong, then you have the ability to attempt to find something with which to prove it wrong, rather than just disagreeing with it because it doesn't match up with the religion that you've chosen.”

That is the way it SHOULD be, but, that is NOT the way it actually is. Way too often, when a student expresses skepticism about evolution, without mentioning anything about creationism (just objective, scientific skepticism), the teacher will ask, “Well then, just what do YOU believe?” If the student has no particular belief, they are usually fine. But, how is the “creationist” student, who had no intention of getting into that discussion, supposed to answer that question? They know that an honest answer will degenerate into a discussion they wish to avoid, and in some cases, result in ridicule. In some cases, the teacher is inadequate to answer the questions, so they will resort to this tactic to cover-up their inadequacies.

A favorite tactic of the science teacher is to bluntly ask the “skeptic”, “Are you one of those creationists?”

The only reason I brought up the subject of evolution was that it was an example of “riding a train as far as it will take you and then jumping off” and doing a 180!


You also wrote: “The founders of our country did a pretty decent job with checks and balances. This makes rapid change difficult, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.”

Agreed. But the tools and skills necessary to maintain something is very different to the tools and skills necessary to build it or secure it. Those checks and balances would not have secured our freedoms.


You also wrote: “Our freedoms could have possibly been secured in a non-violent way as well. Did Canada engage in a violent rebellion to become free from England? Did Australia?”

Not sure the comparison between the USA and Australia & Canada is valid.
First, England of the late 18th century is VERY different from England of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries.
Secondly, Canada and Australia benefited from our rebellion. Our rebellion significantly diminished the control and influence of the monarch, so any resistance from England was muted.
Thirdly, is Australia truly independent? They see themselves as “independent”, since 1901 I believe. However, Australia is still considered a monarchy, a “commonwealth” with Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign. They did not ratify the Statute of Westminster until 1942 (during WW2). Because of the defeats of the UK military forces in SE Asia, Australia turned to the USA as “protector”. In 1999, Australia’s own citizens rejected a referendum to formally end their allegiance to the Crown.
Again, questionable comparison.

No, I can not name a true democracy. Again, my point was that the operating/maintenance systems are not the same as those that secured our freedoms.


You also wrote: “People who don't trust other people solely because those people believe differently are ignorant and need to learn more about those people. People who know about how other people believe and don't trust them based on the tenets of that belief at least have some justification.”

True, but that is part of the problem. There are people (atheists or agnostics) very much opposed to people of faith being elected to office, and so on. The real question is: are these individuals a small insignificant portion of non-believers? A small, but SIGNIFICANT potion? A large portion?

Will education alone ease the concerns of some people of faith. Keep in mind, the tension is not between just atheists and Christians. There is tension between atheists and Orthodox Jews and between atheists and Muslims!


In response to my statement: "While I do not agree with them, their fears are not unfounded."
You wrote: “Yes they are.”

Sorry. Even if the portion of atheists that “threaten” us is small, they do exist.

Look at your own behavior at home. Do you lock your doors at night? Even though 95%+ of the people out there will not hurt you, that 5% does cause you to take preventive measures.

Even if 95% of atheists are not threatening to us, it is not unreasonable or unfounded to take preventive measures. If anything, we will not let our guard down. As long as scientists and professors face discrimination because they are Christians, we can not let our guard down.

Is this a wide spread problem? Don’t think so. And in some cases, the political views of these individuals appear to be the larger complaint from their critics. (But, is political discrimination more tolerable than religious discrimination?


You wrote: “There are no pure atheist regimes, just as there are no theist regimes.”

So true. Please remind your fellow atheists!


You wrote: “It's not reasonable for someone to counter their principles. If it was, then those principles were not effective to begin with.”

Not true. Temporary, but extraordinary circumstances may call for temporary and extraordinary responses. When the Patriot Act was first implemented, I cautioned many friends and family members about some of the implications. I was quickly and harshly “refuted” by most. It seems that many Americans are willing to “trade their freedoms for security”.

I am reminded of a quote from Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

That seems true, but, actually that is a statement based on a delusion. The very moment you pick up the phone and dial 911, you surrender some of your liberty. As soon as you yell “Help”, you have to temporarily yield some amount of your liberty to the law enforcement or medical response personnel. They can not arrive at your home and perform their responsibilities if they have to ask permission from you to do their job. That does not mean they have unlimited authority, but, realistically, they can not do their job without that assumed permission.


You also wrote: “I have never personally met any atheists that wanted to remove religion from society.”
You need to review some of the comments on other blogs!

ray at 2:42AM on Nov 2nd 2007

156. Responding to Tem (135) who wrote: “The violence there was only implied.”

Whether or not Jesus actually hit any one or any animal with the whip is not clear. But, he did scatter the coins and overturn the tables. Not exactly what we think of when we speak of violence, but, not a peaceful act either.

I do not read Greek, so I will have to get back to you on the translation accuracy question.

ray at 2:45AM on Nov 2nd 2007

157. "Regarding your debate with Diana, I agree with you. I was just cautioning you on your statement. Taken to an extreme, it can be counter-productive. You latest post (134) suggests no disagreement on that particular point."

I think you and I are in agreement, for the most part.

"That is the way it SHOULD be, but, that is NOT the way it actually is."

We're in agreement here too. If it isn't that way, then it needs to be that way.


:They know that an honest answer will degenerate into a discussion they wish to avoid, and in some cases, result in ridicule."

Teachers should never ridicule their students. However, I can understand that a classroom isn't always the place for countless questions -- the teacher has a curriculum that they need to complete, and only a certain amount of time to do so. There might be better ways to debate that for students that are interested.

"Agreed. But the tools and skills necessary to maintain something is very different to the tools and skills necessary to build it or secure it. Those checks and balances would not have secured our freedoms."

They don't. We can see the erosion of that today. But they at least make it happen more slowly.

"Not sure the comparison between the USA and Australia & Canada is valid.
First, England of the late 18th century is VERY different from England of the mid-19th and early 20th centuries."

It's valid. We could have waited. I'm not saying that we should have, but it was certainly a possibility.

Change can be made in non-violent ways. It might be more difficult, and it might take more than a lifetime, but it can be done. My belief in this might make me an idealist, but that is how I feel.

"Secondly, Canada and Australia benefited from our rebellion. Our rebellion significantly diminished the control and influence of the monarch, so any resistance from England was muted."

There were many factors. We wouldn't have won in the way that we did without France's help, for instance.

"Thirdly, is Australia truly independent? They see themselves as “independent”, since 1901 I believe. However, Australia is still considered a monarchy, a “commonwealth” with Queen Elizabeth as their sovereign. They did not ratify the Statute of Westminster until 1942 (during WW2). Because of the defeats of the UK military forces in SE Asia, Australia turned to the USA as “protector”. In 1999, Australia’s own citizens rejected a referendum to formally end their allegiance to the Crown.
Again, questionable comparison."

They're truly independent. I'm friends with quite a few Australians, and I know how they'd react if I asked them that. :)

If you want a similar reaction, next time you speak to a New Zealander, say something like "Ohhh... aren't you right next to Australia?"

"No, I can not name a true democracy. Again, my point was that the operating/maintenance systems are not the same as those that secured our freedoms."

I just mentioned that because I didn't think that democracy belonged in your example.


"True, but that is part of the problem. There are people (atheists or agnostics) very much opposed to people of faith being elected to office, and so on. The real question is: are these individuals a small insignificant portion of non-believers? A small, but SIGNIFICANT potion? A large portion?"

I don't know. I don't personally know any atheists who are opposed to anyone because of their beliefs. In my experience (as a believer and as an atheist), such concerns are usually on the side of theists. The only concerns that atheists I know (the only ones I can speak for) have about theist politicians is whether or not they can serve the country without feeling the need to force their religion upon others.

"Will education alone ease the concerns of some people of faith. Keep in mind, the tension is not between just atheists and Christians. There is tension between atheists and Orthodox Jews and between atheists and Muslims!"

It seems to me that religious people tend to like other religious people with differing views more than they like atheists. Mr. D'Souza is one example. That doesn't mean that there aren't tensions with others, but it seems somewhat less. That might just be because I notice it more, but I certainly remember feeling iffy about atheists before I became one.

"Sorry. Even if the portion of atheists that “threaten” us is small, they do exist."

It's not atheists that threaten you. It's people that belong to specific ideologies that happen to also be atheist. That would be like me saying that historically, theists have threatened atheists. Well yes, but not all types of theists. I've never heard of a Taoist threatening anyone for having a different belief, for instance.

"Look at your own behavior at home. Do you lock your doors at night? Even though 95%+ of the people out there will not hurt you, that 5% does cause you to take preventive measures."

There's a difference between being careful and being fearful. I do lock my doors at night, but I don't treat all strangers like they want to rob my house.

"Even if 95% of atheists are not threatening to us, it is not unreasonable or unfounded to take preventive measures. If anything, we will not let our guard down. As long as scientists and professors face discrimination because they are Christians, we can not let our guard down."

No one should face discrimination because of what they believe. But the people who feel discriminated against need to realize that they are also capable of discriminating as well. Sometimes they do it solely because they feel put upon.

"Is this a wide spread problem? Don’t think so. And in some cases, the political views of these individuals appear to be the larger complaint from their critics. (But, is political discrimination more tolerable than religious discrimination?"

No, it isn't. It's very tiring to watch Democrats and Republicans go at it again and again on, say, The Young Turks blog.

"So true. Please remind your fellow atheists!"

I do. I've corrected people on that before.

"Not true. Temporary, but extraordinary circumstances may call for temporary and extraordinary responses."

I completely disagree with you. If you need to abandon your principles, even for a moment, then one of two things happened. Your principles were not good enough to handle the situation, or you didn't work hard enough to make them work.

"When the Patriot Act was first implemented, I cautioned many friends and family members about some of the implications. I was quickly and harshly “refuted” by most. It seems that many Americans are willing to “trade their freedoms for security”."

Most people seem to be inclined to do that. That's one way that Communist governments got themselves into power.

"That seems true, but, actually that is a statement based on a delusion. The very moment you pick up the phone and dial 911, you surrender some of your liberty. As soon as you yell “Help”, you have to temporarily yield some amount of your liberty to the law enforcement or medical response personnel."

This isn't the same thing as the Patriot Act or things like it. You can say the same thing every time you fill out a job application and give out your social security number.

"They can not arrive at your home and perform their responsibilities if they have to ask permission from you to do their job. That does not mean they have unlimited authority, but, realistically, they can not do their job without that assumed permission."

Your permission is in calling them.

"You need to review some of the comments on other blogs!"

I haven't met any of those atheists personally. I take everything I read on here with a grain of salt; the internet (and apparently Mr. D'Souza) tends to bring out the worst in people.

Tem at 6:02AM on Nov 2nd 2007

158. ray:

"Whether or not Jesus actually hit any one or any animal with the whip is not clear. But, he did scatter the coins and overturn the tables. Not exactly what we think of when we speak of violence, but, not a peaceful act either."

So, basically, something easily taken out of context and twisted?

"I do not read Greek, so I will have to get back to you on the translation accuracy question."

I can read and write ancient Greek relatively well (a result from religious studies), but I don't currently have a copy of a Bible in it. I was hoping you'd have a link, but I'll see if I can find it.

Tem at 6:05AM on Nov 2nd 2007

159. Dinesh wrote: "In a way the new atheism in the West can be understood as an angry backlash against these developments."

I’m not an atheist, and I’m not angry at these developments. For the sake of argument, let’s say I was angry. That is completely irrelevant to whether I know that there is a God. Angry people often get things right.


Dinesh wrote: "The new atheists once expected that with modernity religion would simply wither away. It hasn't happened. In fact, the most rapidly-modernizing countries like India and China are ones where religion is booming the most. Consequently the atheists have mobilized a ferocious attack against religion and specifically Christianity, attempting to stop its alarming growth."

I doubt that the growth of religion and Christianity in China is why any atheist is saying intensely that there is no God. They are saying it, because they think it is true. And probably also because they think the world would be better if people, in general, weren’t as religious, at least in the fundamentalist sense.
However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that some "atheists have mobilized a ferocious attack against religion and specifically Christianity" in order to "attempt to stop its alarming growth." That is completely irrelevant to whether I know that there is a God. You may have committed the ad hominem fallacy.


Dinesh wrote: "The atheist campaign is aggressively and intelligently mounted, but it's not likely to succeed. Mainly this is because atheists have forgotten how to reproduce. What I mean is that the typical secular couple has one child while the typical religious couple in the West has two children and the typical religious couple outside the West has 3-5 children. Guess who is going to own the twenty-first century!"

If some of the people today have descendants that are alive in 20 million years, it is likely that a significant percentage of those people will not believe in a super being that contributed to the existence of the known universe. In 1900, apparently atheists and agnostics were a tiny percentage of the global population, about .2% of the world’s population. Today, there are most likely over 1 billion people who do not believe in God, about 15% of the world’s population. And apparently the number of people who do not believe in God is increasing at a significant rate, about 8.5 million new converts each year. Here is a link to an article that presents this information:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/paul07/paul07_index.html

In the World Christian Encyclopedia, Samuel Shah and Monica Duffy Toft write:

"The number of nonreligionists...throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900, to 697 million in 1970, and on to 918 million in AD 2000...Equally startling has been the meteoritic growth of secularism...Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world's religions: agnosticism...and atheism...From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems...are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians."

In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Phil Zuckerman, professor at Pitzer College, includes an essay entitled "Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns," in which he tries to estimate the number of non-religious people in the world by looking at polling data. He estimates that there are currently 1.1 billion non-religious people in the world. Here is a link to an abstract of his essay:

http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521842700_CCOL0521842700A005

Wes at 2:14PM on Nov 2nd 2007

160. I wrote: "I’m not an atheist, and I’m not angry at these developments."

I meant: I AM an atheist.

Wes at 2:20PM on Nov 2nd 2007

161. Respect yourself and others with dignified comments, whether you agree or disagree.

What makes this question important? Are there more Christians or more Muslims?

Is it true that God has a son? If so, then it is true whether five people believe it or five billion people believe it.

Is it true that God sent a message to Muhammad? If so, then it is true whether five people believe it or five billion people believe it.

Is everyone's fate in the hands of God? If so, then it is true even if the world is filled with atheists.

If there is no God, what matters? Whatever people say? Atheists believe in something, or in more than one thing. Just as in mathematics, in order to proceed some things must be accepted without proof. In math those things may be called postulates or axioms. In life, we call it faith.

My belief is that the One who created everything that exists has been sending messages to us for thousands of years. These messages have been sent to Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jonah, John, Mary, Jesus and Muhammad, among many others, not all of them mentioned in the Bible or the Qur'an. All those named are mentioned in both the Bible and the Qur'an. Muhammad was, and will be, the last to receive such messages, and the Qur'an was the message he was given to deliver.

Muhammad and the Qur'an have been misunderstood, misrepresented and slandered for 14 centuries. I have read the Qur'an (in Arabic) and I am reading the King James Version of the Bible (which I was raised on). The Bible is far more violent than the Qur'an. This is not a condemnation of the Bible; the Bible contains records of many violent historical events.

Muhammad never had slaves. Slaves were given to him, as was common in Arabia 14 centuries ago. He promptly freed them. Because of his excellent character, they chose to stay with Muhammad. They were neither his prisoners, nor his servants.

Bilal was an Ethiopian who had been a slave, but was freed by a companion of Muhammad. He became the treasurer and the caller to prayer (mu'adhdhin) for Muhammad's community. He was not a baggage carrier, for Muhammad or any other Arab Muslim.

If you will notice, Muslims do not say the ugly, slanderous things about Jesus Christ or about Saint Paul that some Christians feel a need to say about Muhammad. He was one of the most honorable men who ever lived, and a prophet of God, regardless of what the slanderers say.

My belief is that a day will come -- the Judgment -- when we will all surrender to God, willingly or unwillingly. It is not a poll, an election, or a popularity contest.

Hakeem at 9:31AM on Nov 3rd 2007

162. Do the math: in Israel, Iraq, Darfur and Afghanistan and, soon in Iran and Syria, we are killing as many Muslims as we can then don't be surprised that they are not the fastest growing religion. You gotta give them a handicap!!!

Thomas Green at 10:52AM on Nov 3rd 2007

163. I disagree with Jaki Baez (post #5) who said "the people who are extremist(s), all are uneducated, never went to school." In fact, the extremists who bombed the Scotland Airport this year, were Medical Doctors. And those involved in 9/11 were graduate students in Hamburg Germany. One of the top leaders of Al-Quaeda was a Medical Doctor (sorry, I can't recall his name or country). Some of the worst Islamic extremists are young men actually born and educated in Britain, of immigrant parents.

W. Barber at 11:53AM on Nov 5th 2007

164. Why no micro-analysis of Judeism? Are Jews too sensative to take criticism? Will they cry wolf/holocaust? Interesting how fear of offending Jews keeps them out of any sort of religious debate.

john at 4:45PM on Nov 5th 2007

165. Perhaps it would be best to talk about this over a nice cup of coffee. You could win a new Senseo Coffee Machine here!

http://www.mycreditfriend.com

Troy at 9:27PM on Nov 5th 2007