Luther was extremely preoccupied with matters pertaining to salvation and as such was a very inquisitive monk. So the church made him a Bible teacher to keep him busy.

The article mentioned in passing that Luther married a nun. Luther is arguably one of the most influential persons in history and interestingly this marriage may have been one of his most influential acts. It basically established a precedent for marrying for “love” and established the autonomous nuclear family as the basic societal unit.

“It basically established a precedent for marrying for “love” and established the autonomous nuclear family as the basic societal unit.”

If it’s Luther that is the dominant force in changing maritial norms, why does companionate marriage not become the norm in Anglo-European society for another 250 or so years? Historians would also tell you that you’re way off about the “autonomous nuclear family” thing as well…the US and Western Europe is pretty exceptional in this regard and even the nucleation of households in those places are of more recent coinage (early 19th c, in most places, later in others). That process has more to do with industrialization than Luther.

Luther is important, but I think you’re confusing influence with causality.

Poor wording on my part. I stand corrected.

See, now wasn’t that nice and civil?

civ•il (s v l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens: civil duties.
2. Of or relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state: civil society; the civil branches of government.
3. Of ordinary citizens or ordinary community life as distinguished from the military or the ecclesiastical: civil authorities.
4. Of or in accordance with organized society; civilized.
5. Sufficiently observing or befitting accepted social usages; not rude: a civil reply. See Synonyms at polite.
6. Being in accordance with or denoting legally recognized divisions of time: a civil year.
7. Law Relating to the rights of private individuals and legal proceedings concerning these rights as distinguished from criminal, military, or international regulations or proceedings.

I guess you mean #5. So basically you mean “polite”. Personally I would choose another one, but like I said, the world doesn’t need my input.

I get the message; MCB is not a forum for making controversial stands or social criticism, blah, blah, blah.

What dog doesn’t want a little tail?

I get the message; MCB is not a forum for making controversial stands or social criticism, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, for heaven’s sake. MCB has done all of those things, and long before you came along.

We just don’t want Magic 8 Ball comments.

You were fine here. You had an interesting historical point, and one of the house Ph.D.s in history helped you refine your point.

It was a conversation. And the beginnings of a good one.

I was myself going to say that one of my favourite fictional books of all time is Kitty, My Rib…the story of Luther’s marriage from the point of view of Katharine, his wife.

But I got sidetracked with another post.

Anyway, I’m saying it now.

Katherine:

I know it was the beginning of a good a conversation. That’s why I posted the comment, just like the one on Christian music.

The “magic 8 ball” litmus test is artificial, subjective and prone to bias.

one of the house Ph.D.s in history helped you refine your point

And it’s good that she did, because when it comes to Luther and marriage, I got nothin’. I read a biography of the guy once, and when I read the author’s dedication to his wife as “my Katharina von Bora” I got completely squicked out by this example of severe overidentification with the subject. And due to some unfortunate psychological process, the squickiness got transferred to Luther himself. Or, at any rate, to his marriage. I know it’s not his fault, but there it is.

BTW, tacking one’s major points of argumentation up on church doors was the typical process used to invite public scholarly debate in European university towns in the 15th and 16th centuries. So the symbolism of his initial action wasn’t “take that, you nasty church and your associated administrative and spiritual hierarchy,” but was “we all really, really need to be talking about this in public.” Which I find kind of cool.

I get the message; MCB is not a forum for making controversial stands or social criticism, blah, blah, blah.

Looks Magic 8 Ball to me. You are trying to elicit a response, then you act surprised when the desired response arrives? What gives?

the squickiness got transferred to Luther himself.

I generally feel very squicky about Luther. He retained much of his Catholic roots when it came to matters of the Church interfering in politics. He was also not shy about persecuting Jews and supporting Zwingli in the latter’s persecution of the Anabaptists.

(Luther and Zwingli are the main reasons why I insist–in my own Magic 8 ball fashion–that I am not to be called a “Protestant”.)

Number9:

This is what I mean by biased. You are quick to criticize me, but Sarcastro gets a pass. What gives?

Oh, get a room, you two!

You are quick to criticize me, but Sarcastro gets a pass. What gives?

I am going out on a limb here, do you think it might be because Sarcastro is sarcastic?

I was thinking about this pertaining to the recent discussions here about the Christian music industry and the marriage of commerce and religion. It strikes me as very similar …. the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was corrupted by its wealth and power. I see modern Protestantism doing the same thing.

I see modern Protestantism doing the same thing.

I think that happens to any organisation which is exposed to money and power. It snowballs into this grab for more money, more power, etc.

That’s exactly what happened to Zwingli.
(I’m not his biggest fan, in case no one could tell.)

In fact, my cynic’s view of the Protestant Reformation is that many of the leaders of the movement (Luther, Zwingli, and to a lesser extent Melanchthon) were enamoured of the power of the Catholic church and yet frustrated at what they perceived as an ecclesiastical ceiling past which they could not ascend. So as much as the Reformation was about decrying corruption in the Catholic church, the latter years of Luther’s and Zwingli’s life were much about trying to wrest power and wealth from Catholicism for their own movements.

I’m singing the praises of my people here, because the majority Anabaptists have always eschewed involvement in earthly governance–in part as an effort to preserve the integrity of the church.

That’s why the Reformers were so excited to have us all killed.

the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was corrupted by its wealth and power. I see modern Protestantism doing the same thing.

At least the Medici family and their popes bought good art.

haha thanks for the link. love the little dog quote. Very amusing.

You are quick to criticize me, but Sarcastro gets a pass. What gives?

Maybe because I didn’t have to go look up the meaning of the word “civil”.

Sarcastro:

Maybe.

I am open to criticism. Not that anyone would notice in any positive light.

I’m still getting mixed messages though. First it’s my tone. Then it’s my timing. Then it’s “magic 8 ball” comments.

Interestingly, the criticism always seems to apply to a controversial stance or a social criticism.

I know that discussing religion and politics is supposedly O.K., but I guess I am still trying to figure out in what context I can be free to express my particular sentiments on the subjects. The options seem to narrow every time I do.

Number9:

I am going out on a limb here, do you think it might be because Sarcastro is sarcastic?

So the criterion for an acceptable ‘magic 8 ball’ comment is sarcasm?

ROR!, you seem to worry a bit much about the smallest things in life.

Luther’s anti-Judaism is most troublesome, culminating in the formation of Israel in 1947, and the continued mess today in the Middle East. But, but, the reformation of Christianity has allowed our society to advance to what we see today. Wouldn’t trade that, I don’t think.

It’s sad that Luther hasn’t had (yet) a Mohammedean counterpart.

“Because Jews “are not in Christ” or “do not teach Christ,” it follows inexorably in Luther’s argumentation that they are to be grouped with the evildoers, the sinners, and the scornful and thus excluded from the congregation of the righteous. “Salus extra Christum non est.”

Question to the hosts: most comments on other blogs (well, Wordpress, Haloscan and Blogger, anyways) have the ability to hyperlink the comment (usually using the ‘#’ character.) Is that option turned off here? Or is that even an option?

Serr8d:

Are you suggesting that I should ignore my critics?

ROR, overall you add a lot to the discussions around here. I don’t know if it matters, but you got my support.

Katherine, don’t take this wrong. I am certainly not trying to pick a fight. But you seem really cynical when talking about famous people or historical figures, like you always go out of your way to mention their character flaws. Luther’s impact on Christianity was far more good than bad. Also, Mother Teresa helped a lot more people than she hurt. Antisemitism didn’t start with Martin Luther. I’m sure the people he was preaching to, former Catholics, were already very anti-Jew.

And yet you’ll ridicule me for revering Abe Lincoln.

There are just a few historical figures who rub me the wrong way. You happen to have mentioned two of them.

I’m quite fond of Alexander Hamilton, Abe Lincoln, Golda Meir, Chang Kai Shek, Albert Einstein, Menno Simons and others.

As far as the number of people helped or hurt by Mother Teresa I’m not the ultimate judge of that. I just happen to believe that her definition of what is helpful does not always coincide with mine.

I think it’s time for a famous quote:

Imagine there’s no Heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

“Imagine all the people living for today”

You don’t see that as a problem, William? Seems to me that sentiment is highly narcissistic, promotes increased oil consumption (therefore Global Warming), given that people would not consider conserving such an important resource as oil for subsequent generations. Everything would be me, me, me, now, now, now, more, more, more. Oh, and it should be given to us with absolutely no sacrifice or sweat required (sounds like socialism, a bit.)

I can imagine the human race without borders or without anything worth killing or dying for. You’ve described our successors, probably. Certainly not our current genotype. You won’t find any period of human history that fits your model. We are at the peak of things, peeking ahead to what might be in store for humanity, if we work hard today to secure the future for future generations.

Of course, the Lennons want everything now, without having to pay for it.

Temporarily, I offer you this quote, to get you through your days…
“If we could sniff or swallow something that would, for five or six hours each day, abolish our solitude as individuals, atone us with our fellows in a glowing exaltation of affection and make life in all its aspects seem not only worth living, but divinely beautiful and significant, and if this heavenly, world-transfiguring drug were of such a kind that we could wake up next morning with a clear head and an undamaged constitution - then, it seems to me, all our problems (and not merely the one small problem of discovering a novel pleasure) would be wholly solved and earth would become paradise.” …Aldous Huxley

Lennon wrote such simple songs, to amuse the least of us. Huxley suggests the means for ignoring what’s expected of us. Lennon, I think, found Huxley’s stash…

Mother T was a fraud and an opportunist.

Her idea of “helping a lot of people” would be for them to live in abject poverty so she can raise money.

“I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.”

You’re probably right Katherine. I might be just as cynical as you. The funny thing about people’s love for Lincoln is that he stomped on the constitution more than George Bush ever has, yet the same people who despise Bush 43, love Lincoln. I couldn’t imagine Bush locking up newspaper editors, local politicians who merely disagreed with him. He did hold Padilla and that was wrong, but that doesn’t hold a candle to Lincoln’s violations.

Honestly, I don’t know much about Mother T, so I can’t defend her.

John Lennon’s Imagine is probably the worst song ever written. What a strange dude.

Watch and learn, RoR!

If Mother T really wanted to help the poor of Calcutta, she should have opened a chain of free abortion clinics.

Seems to me that sentiment is highly narcissistic, promotes increased oil consumption (therefore Global Warming), given that people would not consider conserving such an important resource as oil for subsequent generations.

Wow, that’s a very different interpretation of “living for today” than I’ve ever held.

I know I strive daily to live in the moment and experience life to the fullest (sometimes I do better at that than others), but I’m very concerned about planning for the future. I don’t think fully engaging oneself in the current moment necessitates ignoring the future (or even the past). In fact, I think quite the reverse.

…the same people who despise Bush 43, love Lincoln. I couldn’t imagine Bush locking up newspaper editors, local politicians who merely disagreed with him. He did hold Padilla and that was wrong, but that doesn’t hold a candle to Lincoln’s violations.

I guess some of us have differing ideas as to what constitutes a national emergency.

1861 - Former states of the union join in a collective insurrection (called a “confederacy”) in order to preserve the right to practice slavery.

John Lennon’s Imagine is probably the worst song ever written.

As far as idealistic sentiment expressed lyrically, Lee Greenwood’s “God Bless the USA” is far, far worse.

I always thought that Lenon meant “how nice if people would do what’s right simply because it’s right, and not out of fear of punishment/desire for reward.”

But I’m a lot more concerned with Kat’s admiration for Chiang, who was more stable than Mao, to be sure, but who set up just as controlling a dictatorship.

Yeah Andy, what’s more stupid than being proud to be an American, and not forgetting the men who died and gave you your freedom? Thats a lot more stupid that sitting around high on hallucinogens.

Also, so what you are saying is that there IS a time when a president is justified in violating the Constitution. Interesting.

But I’m a lot more concerned with Kat’s admiration for Chiang, who was more stable than Mao, to be sure, but who set up just as controlling a dictatorship.

The aim of Sun Yat-Sen’s KMT was to defeat the warlords and unite China in order to move China into Democratic rule. When Chiang succeeded him, he succeeded in triumphing over the warlords and uniting China. He still treasured the aim of moving toward a democracy.

I admire him for that.

As far as world systems of government go, mentally I consider a dictatorship less bad for the common people than a warring feudality. Of course I prefer democracy above all else, but I think Chiang was on the path toward democracy in China until WWII weakened his government and they were defeated by Mao’s communist party in 1949.

In fact, I admire Chiang largely because he is the “forgotten ally” without whom we would likely have not defeated Japan in WWII.

I could go on and on.

I think I’ll just go back to saying whatever the hell I want when I want rather than having to cater to subjective criteria that is prone to bias.

The site rules prohibit personal attacks and name calling, and I have always refrained from that.

I have some thoughts on this political discussion but I am going to charitably respect that this was Katherine’s historical thread topic and refrain, for now.

Also, so what you are saying is that there IS a time when a president is justified in violating the Constitution. Interesting.

I think Lincoln was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. One of the things that irks me is that many of the combatants during the Civil War wanted it both ways.

It was literally a war of brother against brother. Imagine what’d be like now if Tennessee were at war with Indiana. I’d have to be against my entire family! (Okay, I’d probably move back there…but still.)

As I’ve read through the claims against Lincoln over the years it seems that there were more than a few CSA people who were fully at war with the USA but then expected Constitutional protection to apply to them when they got caught.

There was a lot of that, and there was a whole lot of not being able to tell who the enemy WAS.

Do I think Lincoln made the best choices? Not ideally, no. But I do think he was faced with a unique sort of hell that most of us can’t imagine.

I’ve always thought what a plasant existence it must be for a Lincoln detractor: criticizing him for doing everything he could to keep the country together all the while benefitting from the fruits of those very labors.

When all is said and done, you want to know who to blame for the Civil War? Southern white men afraid of an honest day’s work.

Roger, if it were only that simple.

Macro and microeconomics, clash between industrialism and thie ideal of a perfect agrarian society, racial mores, including long-held biblical interpretations concerning race, and the argument of just what “The United States” means; that argument has been going on since the formation of the union.

And don’t forget youthful adventurism - that played a part, too.

Eh, Kat, everything I have read about Dr. Sun suggests to me that he was a democrat to the core. Everything I have read about General Chiang suggests to me that he was a quasi-warlord, who honored Sun but was more concerned with keeping himself in power than in promoting democratic government in the territories he controlled. He certainly set up a party dictatorship in Taiwan. But we can agree that Sun was very cool.

Religion is foremost an insurance policy against death; one in which the benefits are subject to doubt, yet the costs are abundantly clear.

So tell me Roger and Kat, was it okay for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus and lock up political opponents and newspaper editors? It seems like you are giving Lincoln a pass because of the circumstances. It’s like you are saying “every President should respect the constitution and not violate it, unless the situation is really, really serious and he really really needs to.”

Do you two really want to take that position in a time like we are living in now?

Lincoln blamed Harriet Beecher Stowe for the War Between the States.

The book propelled the northern abolitionist movement in no small part because it brought to light the fact that it was fellow Christians, rather than African heathens, that were being brutalized.

Lincoln blamed Harriet Beecher Stowe for the War Between the States.

Rarely has the gulf between different senses of humor been illustrated more clearly.

Lincoln blamed Harriet Beecher Stowe for the War Between the States.

Sources?

was it okay for Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus and lock up political opponents and newspaper editors

Well, you’ve gotten the Southern Oversimplification Of The Situation downpat.

Do I think he was right? no. Do I think he was justified? Partially.

Of course, I think the CSA was dreadfully wrong in seceding, so it was a world where there was plenty of blame to go around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Beecher_Stowe

That?!?

Oh. Well, I’ve always heard that it was apocryphal.

Even if it was true, it strikes me as (as nm put it) just Lincoln’s sense of humour.

Frankly, I’ve always doubted that he said it.

Slarti –

All of those things were factors, certainly, of the tension. Only one thing was the real cause of the war. Look at it another way: were it not for slavery, would there have been a civil war at all? No: the fundamental cause was the desire of the South to expand slavery int he territories and Lincoln’s opposition to same.

Glen –

You had a situation where you had open rebellion going on within the United States. I’m not talking about the CSA, either. I’m talking about Maryland. Like the man said, the Constitution ain’t a suicide pact.

I should clarify: I have a fairly extensive background of studying Lincoln. He himself attributed the Civil War to “preserving the Union” and advancing Federalism vs. States’ Rights.

Oh, and back to you , Glen, I’d like to point out that the great irony of the whole suspension of Habeas Corpus was in the person of Justice Taney.

He challenged Lincoln’s suspension, but out of what I consider to be purely partisan gamesmanship. Taney was very pro-slavery and in fact issued the infamous opinion about slaves not being human and therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.

I find Taney’s decision to taint his judgeship and his subsequent opinions in Ex parte Merryman.

Well, I wasn’t there. It is mentioned in at least one history textbook, that’s actually where I got the information. I can’t link to a textbook.

The way I understand the story is that it was spoken as a greeting in levity, but arguably could be taken as revealing, if true.

This is another thing that’s annoying about the Lincoln-haters–>this idea that he took office and decided to start a civil war for no apparent reason other than personal amusement or the persuit of some twisted kind of glory. He viewed his duty as President of the United States tbe–quite reasonably–to protect and preserve the union. That’s why it was done.

Anyway this idea of preserving the “agrarian way of life sounds all nice and Jeffersonian, but you know what it really meant in practice? The rich, landed white folks sit on the porch while the “lesser” races worked the fields. That ain’t being politically correct, that’s just a fact.

If anyone cares, here’s the defense from the man himself:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=612

Taney was very pro-slavery and in fact issued the infamous opinion about slaves not being human and therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.

*Sorry. Forgot to add that was in the Dred Scott decision.

He viewed his duty as President of the United States tbe–quite reasonably–to protect and preserve the union. That’s why it was done.

Yes, thank you.

See, Glen, I don’t malign ALL famous people. Just the nuns and monks.

Roger:

It’s important for me to point out that I agree with you re: Lincoln and the civil war. So I’m not appraching this as a CSA defender or anything.

That being said, the rich landowners were, what, 1% of the southern population? You can’t convince me that the other 99% went to fight and die so that the 1% could remain lazy.

Why did the people who weren’t slaveowners agree to the war, if not those reasons I listed?

Paging our resident historians…

Slarti –

That’s an easy one: conscription. Also, the Confederates had quite the convenient policy of having open-ended tours of duty. Join for the homeland…and never leave!

Slarti –

I should expand a bit: the original reason for most Southerners joining the army was a combination of glory, defending their homes, etc. But the only reason they had to any of that stuff is, again, because the slaveowners who essentially ran the South wouldn’t give up on their desire to expand the institution to the territories, thus sparking the war. Which is why, again, I say that the whole thing could have been avoided were it not for the landed class’ stubborn clinging to slavery.

I was going over some correspondence between officers on opposite sides. After basically calling the other guy a liar, thief, traitor, and murderer, terms the letters would be signed, “Ever thine humble servant”, or something like that.

Slavery, racism, and the War Between the States are blight on American history, not just southern history. I personally wouldn’t want the task of arguing the Confederate side, however.

Ever thine humble servant,

Ror!

The influence of slavery on the war — and the perception at the time that the war was being fought over slavery, with States’ Rights/way of life being a polite fiction, or rather a piece of propaganda — is easy to see by the seccession of West Virginia from Virginia, and (less well known) of other non-slavery-economy areas from their surrounding states. Plus the fact that huge proportions of the male population in the Appalachians were draft-avoiders, many of them explicitly stating that they wouldn’t fight because they didn’t own slaves. Bridgett can probably give better references; I’m still trying to get over the idea that King Arthur is supposed to have anything to do with the middle ages.

You rang?

The white yeomanry supported the Civil War for a couple of reasons. Historians argue that non-slaveholding whites *did* benefit from slavery in a couple of ways, even if one leaves aside the general economic health of the region as a booming export economy. First, they actively supported race-based slavery because it was a system that secured racial privilege for even the poorest of whites. Second, white men understood that laws and cultural practices that promoted household mastery endowed the head of the household with a lot of power of other economic actors in the household (including wife and kids); Stephanie McCurry argues that this recognition of men’s property rights in the labor of other members of one’s household (secured by laws that fused mastery over slaves, wives, and kids into a single type of law) gave non-slaveholders a real personal stake in the defense of the Southern “way of life” (which was, at its core, underpinned by slavery). It helped them to conceive of themselves as the political equals of men much more wealthy than themselves and early in the 19th century had been the vehicle through which suffrage itself had expanded.

Moreover, yeomen small farmers shared important social values with the great planters, including defense of personal property and reputation as a matter of honor, virulent racism (and Slarti’s right, there’s an upswing in Bible-based racism during the lead up to the Civil War), a recent imperial history that had violently removed Indians and thus a fear of any extended federal military presence, an interpretation of the American Revolution that stated that the war had been about making individual men independent and local popular governance supreme…so in many ways, racial and cultural identification trumped class differences.

I’d guess I’d just point out that poor men experienced the war itself as a harsh tax on their livelihoods and because they had less in reserve to begin with, they felt the cost of war (its sacrifices, its lost econ opportunities, the destruction of infrastructure and personal property) very keenly, even if more is made of “oh, poor planters, Tara is burning and your slaves have runned oft.”

Men who join for glory or the defense of the homeland stay in because of loyalty to their comrades in arms. Conscription gets to be a much less useful strategy for securing troops in the field because the flip side of that is desertion. Men who don’t join willingly and don’t have any social ties to the other soldiers begin to defect in droves…so much so that by late 1864, Confederate officials are trying to formulate policies whereby they could free and arm black troops as conscripts.

nm is right that upland Appalachian men were far less likely to want to join up than men in the lowland South. Only part of that was “no slaves, no war,” though. The other real part was demobilization because of wartime hardship. The closer one’s family was to starvation, the less motivated one was to join or to stay in the field.

Well….nothing to add to that. Quite comprehensive.

One of the most fascinating things about that time in history is the Appalacian resistance to the rebellion.

Y’all correct me if I’m wrong, here’s how I’ve heard it:

The mountainous regions of the south were not suited for the plantation way of life, and were never hotbeds of slavery. When the war broke out, many in these areas sided with the Union (the most obvious being West Virginia, but also east Tennessee, and northern Georgia) The nicknames “Johnny Reb” and “Billy Yank” were used quite a bit at the time, and this is where the term “Hillbilly” comes from. Literally, those who lived in the “hills” were “Billy Yanks”.

And this explains why east Tennessee has Republicanism SO ingrained in its culture, while the rest of the state does not (except for the more recent suburban Republican solidification)

At least that’s the history as I’ve learned it. But it was self-directed, so no doubt I’ve just passed along several errors.

From Luther to Lincoln. Have a good weekend guys.

I’d disagree with Slarti, but I don’t want to make him cry.

One could look up the term “hillbilly”, and see it used when referring to Ulster-Scots who supported William of Orange back in the late 1600’s and their descendants who emigrated to Appalachia.

Later, those descendants were still called hillbilly when Billy Yank and Johnny Reb were afightin’.

Bridgett can probably give better references; I’m still trying to get over the idea that King Arthur is supposed to have anything to do with the middle ages.

In all fairness, Kaye does say (over in the original link) that she was using a VERY loose definition of “medieval” when building her list.

I won’t try to justify Lincoln’s actions. Slavery is now widely discredited as a genocidal atrocity, so that makes it easy to get behind Lincoln. If I understand correctly, many modern southerners question the necessity of his actions without necessarily condoning the antebellum south’s “way of life.”

I do know this: Cheney and Bush are trying to suspend habeas corpus permanently.
For those of us that oppose these guys, we scratch our heads at why there is not universal outrage. There is plenty of evidence to indicate their actions may have not been entirely aboveboard and we are not seeing the justification. We know the world is a dangerous place, but we are not prepared to sacrifice the only thing worth defending in order to be “safe.” In order to be free, one must be brave. The last line of the anthem can be taken in a non militaristic context.
Seriously, this is not intended to be shrill screedery, just my honest assessment. Feel free to disagree.

Of the three monotheistic dogmas that have plagued, er uh, I mean enriched civilization for the past several centuries Christianity seems to have the most trouble defining itself. It is arguable that Luther was the catalyst for this.

Greta Christina explains merits of rage:

http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html?cid=91138502#comment-91138502