Proof that organized religion stops critical thinking

Regardless of one’s opinion of Bill Maher — and most objective analyses would most likely agree that there’s plenty worthy of criticism — he did make a very interesting, yet admittedly highly contentious point in this appearance on Scarborough Country that is worthy of further consideration:

Now it’s a bit rich for Scarborough to gloss over the fact that Muslim nations beget Muslim children and Christian nations beget Christian children and that this isn’t merely a coincidence, but let’s ignore that fact for now. 

Nevertheless, there’s a very simple way of examining Maher’s point.  Indeed there is an even more simple way to achieve this end than by throwing around pesky ‘facts’ and ‘arguments’. 

We can test Maher’s hypothesis by examining the utterances of one of the intellectual founders of monotheistically-inspired philosophy:  namely, the Christian philosopher St. Augustine.

Simply put, “By their words, ye shall know them…”

In his work, On the Christian Doctrine, St. Augustine wrote about the “serpentine wisdom of man” (no bonus points for guessing what imagery  he was attempting conjure up with that symbolism).

You can see the ironic brilliance of this, the seeds of the anti-intellectualism which gripped Europe for over a thousand years after Augustine’s death, in his formulation of the concept.

Augustine wrote:

“Thus in the Wisdom of God the world could not know God through wisdom.”

and

“Thus the Wisdom of God, setting out to cure men, applied Himself to cure them, being at once the Physician and the Medicine. Because man feel through pride, He applied humility as a cure. We were trapped by the wisdom of the serpent; we we are freed by the foolishness of God. Just as that which was called wisdom was foolishness in those who condemned God, thus this which is called foolishness is wisdom in those who conquer the Devil.”

Now, at first glance, the first quote may not seem as important, but for those of you who’ve read Augustine (yes, I share your pain), and who know the significance of the “City of God/City of Man” dichotomy, you’ll  appreciate the significance of this first quote.

This notion continued unfettered on through the dark ages and was demonstrably responsible for the suppression of the recording of history as well as the development of the science of Bacon and Descartes (in fact if you bother to read the introduction to Descartes’ On the Scientific Method, you’ll get a good flavour of how omnipresent the influence of Augustine’s notion is in European society during his time irrespective of which religion ruled).

The notion later spread to the Protestant faith especially by Calvin, but also Luther.  Just to get a further flavour for the power of religion to stop critical thinking, the former wrote:

“There is no worse screen to block out the Spirit than confidence in our own intelligence.”

and

“Man’s mind is like a store of idolatry and superstition; so much so that if a man believes his own mind it is certain that he will forsake God and forge some idol in his own brain.”

Moreover, for those of you who accuse me of picking on Christianity, we can find similar anti-intellectual utterances in the other highly-organized, highly-systematized religions of Islam and Judaism.

So, there’s a reason why we largely didn’t have the scientific method and history and academic pursuits other than theology for the first millennium of the common era.  Simply put, that reason, by their own admissions, was religion.

Even the most basic reading of history is enough to illustrate Bill Maher’s point and, what’s more, in a truly free-thinking society, this fact would have been obvious and non-controversial.

27 Responses to “Proof that organized religion stops critical thinking”


  1. 1 psychols 6 April, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    I’ve always thought Maher’s assertion that religion is antithetical to reason is particularly unenlightened. Religion does not teach that critical or independent thinking is sinful or misguided. It teaches that a man (or woman) cannot become so arrogant about the infallibility of personal reason that he assumes his personal values transcend right or wrong. Maher uses the worst examples of religion and the best examples of reason to prove his point but fails to acknowledge that misguided thinking can result as readily from the misapplication of science as it can from the misapplication of religion.

    Reason works when it comes to science. It fails when it comes to morality. It is just not possible to logically prove that certain truths are absolute. These truths have to be taken on faith or as self evident. The equality of all people, the need to care for the sick and poor, the right of all individuals to dignity are things we, as a society, hold to be true but they are not things we can prove. Similarly we cannot prove, though logic, that certain behaviors are inherently bad.

    The false dichotomy between religion and science is too often used by individuals on both sides of any particular debate to assert a belief or personal value. It is a false assertion because it presupposes that spirituality and reason are mutually exclusive. Many of histories most accomplished scientists were quite religious and many clergy members have been very well educated in the sciences.

  2. 2 paulitics 7 April, 2007 at 11:38 am

    Psychols, just a few points.

    Firstly, you write “Religion does not teach that critical or independent thinking is sinful or misguided.” Actually, empirically-speaking religion DID stop critical and independent thinking for a thousand years and forced the first scientists underground and to edit and obfuscate their research/findings. Galileo. Descartes. Copernicus. These were just some of the scientists more or less at the beginning of the scientific revolution who were told that what they were doing was BOTH sinful AND misguided. What is more, the development of the scientific method, which is precisely a method for thinking critically (read Descartes’ On the Scientific Method for more information), couldn’t occur for a thousand years after Augustine because of religious intolerance to scientific, critical thinking.
    So, I would submit to you that history speaks rather loudly against your contention.

    Secondly, you write, “Reason works when it comes to science. It fails when it comes to morality. It is just not possible to logically prove that certain truths are absolute.” This is demonstrably false and even a cursory overview of scholarship on morality and ethics demonstrates this fact.

    Robert Trivers, Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer are just some of the very many philosophers who have written extensively on this matter (and it should be noted that in the field or moral and ethical philosophy, their work is often taken to be seminal and at the cornerstone due to the fact that they do not appeal to the concept of divine sanction). Moreover, there is ample scholarship in anthropology and evolutionary biology discussing the existence of a Violence Inhibitor Mechanism (VIM) which pre-dates the advent of systematized religious beliefs and can be found in many animal species.

    Lastly you write that values such as “equality” and “the need to care for the sick and poor” cannot be justified in a religious vacuum which ignores, among other things, the entire Marxist tradition of thought which holds equality as both utterly rational and universally moral.

    Thus, your position, as formulated above, is untenable.

  3. 3 psychols 7 April, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Paul,

    My problem with your argument is that you have not proven the religion stopped critical and independant thinking for a thousand years. You have simply stated it as fact and based your subsequent arguments upon it. The so-called dark ages (a term which is out of favour with scholars) stemmed directly from the collapse of the Roman empire. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church.

    You assert further that Copernicus was forced underground. Have you a reference for this assertion? History suggests that the Roman Church encouraged him to publish.

    There is more validity to the assertion that the Roman Church supressed Galileo, though that is as much a reflection of the politics of the time and the personal relationship between Galileo and the pope as anything. Nonetheless, it is still a single instance and cannot be extrapolated to prove your point that religion is antithetical to critical thinking.

    ETA: I realize I have not address your points about Trivers, Dawkins, Singer and Marx. It didn’t want my reply to get too far off topic.

  4. 4 paulitics 7 April, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    Psychols – I suppose in the principle of fairness, I should clarify that my purpose wasn’t to prove this point myself but merely to assert that it had already been proven and that this is an utterly uncontentious reading of history based on literature that is not in any way outside of the mainstream.

    Now what IS contentious is your unsupported assertion that Augustine had no impact on the retardation of the development of the humanities (I used the most salient example of history, but others could have sufficed) as well as the ‘pure’ sciences.

    In terms of religion stopping the advent of history, I can present to you the writings of the first Millenarians as the catalyst for embryonic history (most significant aspect to note in terms of this is the impact of Joachim of Fiore as well as The Anonymous of York) which did not occur until the 11th and 12th Centuries.

    In terms of religion stopping the advent of science, I can present to you Descartes himself — the man who, according to the Cartesian scholar Laurence Lafleur, was the originator of modern philosophy and co-originator of scientific inquiry and thus can very much be considered a relevant case study rather than merely anecdotal — who, in his introduction to Discourse on Method, explicitly notes his persecution. He explicitly writes that the public example made of Galileo (with whom he’d known) would be visited upon him and thus says that he’s reconsidered some of his “more foolish” thoughts which thus makes the reader aware that he’s self-censored his work because of religious persecution.

    P.S. regardless of whether you chose to address the topic of moral and ethical philosophy (of which Trivers, Dawkins and Singer are only the first three to come to mind) as well as Marxism, your unsupported contention that moral considerations such as equality, charity and human dignity can only be constituted through appeal to the divine is still nevertheless untenable. It’s not just that these three thinkers are opposed to you, but rather virtually the entire field of moral and ethical philosophy is diametrically opposed to your assertion.

    Thus while I’m not saying that you can’t hold the position of the existence of a god as an ultimate agent of moral sanction, the contention that there is no way to constitute these moral and ethical precepts other than by appeal to the divine is thus patently and demonstrably false.

  5. 5 Jon 8 May, 2007 at 8:41 am

    Why do you make this site almost impossible to read? Using tiny characters in a low-contrast color to the black background makes it look as if you don’t want people to read what you publish.

  6. 6 paulitics 10 May, 2007 at 8:54 am

    Jon – never let it be said that I don’t act on feedback. :-)

  7. 7 polandschaplin 29 May, 2007 at 9:24 am

    Pauly,

    Glad your so enamoured with socialism, marxism, et al. You’ve been tossing out “empirical” here and there, to help us understand, well, what? That communism has proven itself to work nowhere in the world, but works great in vacuum of books and like minds? Plenty of solid data here, to support the failure of those concepts. What true experience do you really have with communism (I’ve lumped all forms of “enlightenment” here), for example? Now that would be empirical, right? You are an armchair quarterback of the highest bloody caliber (read soft American), just as most marxists. Pauly, did you ever have to awake a 4:30am to stand in line for butter and bread? Or fist-fight on dark streets as you returned home, because of your beliefs? To defend your family? To get the rent? We in the late 80’s in Poland did, and why? Because marxism teaches you that what, all are equal? That reason prevails? Horseshit. Grow up, idiot. Your pretentious rhetoric, inexperience and false understanding of the world makes one laugh, out loud.

    And oh, I’m sure I am not making any assumptions in your background. Do tell if you grew up the streets of some lesser country, scratching to get by. I doubt it. Americans have so much to learn (some).

    If you truly believe that the world would be a better place without a concept of something larger than ourselves, then pack up mate, and get going–North Korea wants you. Email me when you’ve had enough that life. Believe me, you will cry uncle very, very quickly.

    Go thank God that you have what you have, and that Pauly did not think it this way.

  8. 8 paulitics 29 May, 2007 at 11:53 am

    Polandschaplin – I am glad to see that your Christian upbringing has taught you how to execute a proper ad hominem attack.

    If you’re interested in discussing the merits of my argument here, you can feel free to do so. Since you seem more interested in discussing political issues, I am happy to point you to areas where I have addressed many of your points of criticism in the past.

    Specificially, you may find the following of interest:

    https://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/is-capitalism-justified/

    https://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/is-socialism-violent-or-is-liberalism-hypocritical/

    https://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/01/07/to-those-who-say-socialism-doesnt-work/

    Thank you for your continued interest in my site and I look forward to your comments on these related posts.

  9. 9 polandschaplin 29 May, 2007 at 2:22 pm

    Pauly,

    Thanks for the quick reply, you’re obviously bored or unemployed; potentially both.

    I was never raised a Christian. I was fortunate enough to live at a time when one form of modern philosophy manifested itself in my homeland and its supporters, through their actions, convinced me that there must be a better way (Pauly ever see a young boy whipped with an extension cord, because he refuses to “bad-mouth” what he believes is true?). It’s just like your type to say they don’t assume, but of course, you do.

    I’ve read your posts–same b.s. Get to the point–do you really understand the world you live in? Please take this one-way plane ticket I’ve here for you to a distant, troubled, communist land–again, you’ve no experience with what you espouse and what it REALLY means–wouldn’t you have argued this earlier point if you had? (if you think my original comments were “a proper ad hominem attack”, you really are soft. You and your like just wouldn’t make it at all without your poptarts, big suburban lawns, and tv).

    And please, stop with the incessant, erudite(hardly) nonsense:

    “…the merits of my argument…”

    Laughable crap! Do you really love yourself that much? Fool.

    I want you to bloody-well take this as a challenge to go live the life you espouse–again, I’ll pay for the ticket. “Go” because it will never happen here, in my adopted country. And again, email me when you’ve had enough of your “truth”.

    And Pauly, you really are a wimp if you think the above comments were ad hominen. I can defintely rub your face in it, if you like.

  10. 10 polandschaplin 29 May, 2007 at 2:49 pm

    Pauly,

    Sorry about the last comment.

    By the way, do you know of this group?

    Służba Bezpieczeństwa

  11. 11 paulitics 29 May, 2007 at 4:30 pm

    Polandschaplin – I thank you for your continued interest in my blog as well as in my employment status and your selfless attemts to share your perspicacity with me and show me the errors of my ways. It is always so nice to have such a kind-hearted Christian to share the love which their religion has inspired in them.
    I also appreciate you giving me some entertainment as the humorous irony of your comment definitely gave me plenty of enjoyment during my break today at work. Specifically, I enjoyed your your claims that you’ve not engaged in an ad hominem attack against me when you began your comment with “Thanks for the quick reply, you’re obviously bored or unemployed; potentially both.”
    Truly, priceless.
    As for the substance of your comment, it was a bit jumbled in places due to the highly emotional nature of response, so if I misunderstand portions of your attack against me, I’m sure you’ll feel free to clarify it.
    First, you wrote “(Pauly ever see a young boy whipped with an extension cord, because he refuses to “bad-mouth” what he believes is true?). It’s just like your type to say they don’t assume, but of course, you do.”
    This, I hope you realize, is completely incoherent and is not an argument or even a fragment of an argument.
    Second, you wrote “I’ve read your posts–same b.s. Get to the point–do you really understand the world you live in?”
    Yes, I believe I do
    Third you wrote, “Please take this one-way plane ticket I’ve here for you to a distant, troubled, communist land”
    Your offer is fallacious. There are no “communist” lands, only lands which profess to be “communist”. For your offer to be valid you would have to establish a certain country as “communist” which, if you look at what Marx wrote, is nowhere to be found. A country may claim to be Marxist, but claiming doesn’t make it so; anymore than me claiming to be the King of Canada makes me King. (Moreover, strictly speaking, a ‘Marxist’ country is a contradiction in terms).
    If you want to discuss the brutally authoritarian countries which claim to be Marxist, I do not need to see these countries to know that they are terrible and I think you and I would be in perfect agreement on that front.
    Seriously, you must think me some awful person if you think that I enjoy authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
    Fourthly you wrote “if you think my original comments were “a proper ad hominem attack”, you really are soft.”
    Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? A statement needn’t be offensive or hurtful to be ad hominem. Objectively speaking, your original attack (as well your second comment) was ad hominem and that is not based on any subjective feelings one way or another on my part.
    Fifthly you wrote “You and your like just wouldn’t make it at all without your poptarts, big suburban lawns, and tv.”
    I’m glad that you feel that you’ve encapsulated me so as to fully assess my life and what I can and can’t live without. Not that it matters (since this is another one of those pesky ad hominem attacks which, as a general rule, I don’t bother responding to) but I don’t own a house or a condo, I don’t live in the suburbs, I don’t have a lawn, I don’t enjoy pop tarts and I don’t own a television.
    Lastly, you wrote “you really are a wimp if you think the above comments were ad hominen. I can defintely rub your face in it, if you like.”
    I’m glad to see that you concluded with your Christian compassion on display.
    If you think that you somehow cripled me with your penetrating analysis, then you really are suffering from delusions of grandure and you greatly overestimate the impact you have on my life.
    Moreover, there is no need to “rub my face in it” as — and this may surprise you — I am proud of who I am and I don’t hide it. There is nothing which you can ‘rub my face in’ so to speak. Although, to be fair, I would like to see some more of your Christian compassion, so I would like to see what you consider to be “rubbing my face in it”.

  12. 12 Ari Neshama 21 January, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    Interesting article, but the video was not available.

    The angel said not to show others how much you know, but how much you care. Nothing mandatory or mean-spirited or aggressive or self-exalting or self-seeking or deceitful or judgmental or forceful is of God. The love of Christ is gentle, kind, easy to be intreated, courteous, compassionate, patient, and long-suffering.

    The following is the central message of my ministry:

    The following writing is the original, and one and only, correct doctrine of repentance, Christ, baptism, the Godhead, and the commandments of God. It was the truth when the church began about two thousand years ago. It is the one and only doctrine that will enable you to obtain everlasting life.

    For those that believed it, and showed their faith by their love and good deeds, there were many miracles, no fear of any man, no fear of living, no fear of dying, and a joyful anticipation of the world to come, world without end.

    If you read this, believing every word with all your heart, nothing doubting, and do it as best as you are able, as much as lies within you, sharing it with those able to receive it and who want to hear what you have to say, then, for you, the best is yet to come!
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    These are the words of God:

    To live forever = everlasting life = eternal life in the kingdom of God and Christ = with Christ in his throne as Christ is with the Father in His throne = heaven = paradise in a new and glorious body with everlasting joy, and to have the love and joy and peace and mercy and grace of God Almighty, our heavenly Father, that is in His only begotten and beloved Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, while in this present world = this present time = this present body, you must be truly born again = truly saved. In other words, read all of this, believe every word with all your heart, and do it diligently.

    Repent of your sins. Apologize sincerely, in all humility, with a broken spirit and a contrite heart, to those you sinned against (even sins done in secret), and to God and Lord Jesus, for sins against others, against yourself, and against all of heaven. Pray for strength so as to not do it again, and to always be pleasing to God. In other words, have a perfect heart – try your best, and say you’re sorry and really mean it when you don’t. If you don’t come to God with a clean and pure heart, He will not hear your prayers, will withhold blessings, and may even curse you with a curse.

    Believe with all your heart, and confess with your mouth, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (He is not God. He is not both the Father and the Son. Actually, the Word of God is the Son of God. God spoke everything into existence by, through, and for His Son, but not “spoke” as man understands. His Word was put in a body and called Jesus. Jesus Christ is the living Word of God, and we should be living the Word of God as is contained in the written word of God, the Holy Bible. The only English-language Holy Bible wholly inspired of God, and correctly translated in the Spirit from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts is the King James Version = KJV = Authorized Version. All other versions, including the New King James Version = NKJV, are from the devil, who tempted man to write them. The devil changed the English language, and continues to do so, and now claims that the KJV is outdated and hard to understand, and that other versions have their good points.), born of the virgin Mary (we were made of a man and a woman, but Jesus was begotten of God, and not made), never sinned, nor was there any deceit in his mouth (If he were of a man and a woman, then he would have the sin of the flesh, but he was not. When Jesus said, “Before Abraham, I am”, he was not saying he was God: all he was saying is that he was from heaven. When God referred to himself as “I AM”, He used all capital letters.), suffered, shed his pure and precious blood, and died on the cross, enduring the pain and shame, to conquer death and to destroy him that had power of death (that is, the devil), and so that our sins be forgiven, we be reconciled to God, redeemed and purchased back by the precious blood of the Lamb, that after three days and three nights, God (the Father), raised him from the dead, that after forty days, he ascended up to heaven in a cloud to be seated at the right hand of God, all angels, authorities, and powers being made subject unto him, that he will return in like manner to judge the dead and those that are alive at his coming up to God (the Father), that he must reign until he makes his enemies his footstool, and then the Son also himself will be subject to Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

    Be baptized exactly once, completely under the water (that is to say, exactly one immersion, and it must be water) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (not the “Holy Spirit”) when you are old enough to understand, old enough to know to refuse the evil and to choose the good, and old enough to know that this is absolutely necessary for eternal life, for the forgiveness of past sins (but, for future sins, we have an intercessor = a mediator in Jesus), to receive the Holy Ghost (The Holy Ghost is not God. God, Lord Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are a team, three of a kind, one in Spirit, will, and holiness, but each with a separate identity and a separate life. Do not use devil words, such as “trinity” or “triune”, which are not in the KJV. “Godhead” is in the KJV: God (Father) is the head, and Lord Jesus and the Holy Ghost (the Comforter) the other two), and gifts of the Holy Ghost, to have spiritual understanding (that is to say, understanding of the things of the Spirit of God), and to resist the devil, baptized into one Spirit as one of many member of the body of Christ, called his church, of which Christ is the head, buried and resurrected with Chrst, dead to (no longer justified by) the law given to Moses, and completely justified (and, by the way, it is God who justifies, and not any man) before God by your faith in Christ and in Christ’s righteousness (there is no righteousness in a man). Now you are born again = saved.

    Now that you are born again = saved, here is your duty in this present world = this present time = this present body:

    Fear God and Lord Jesus (but, do not fear man), and do = keep His commandments. His commandments were spoken by His Word = His Son, and are briefly comprehended by these two great commandments:

    Love God (Father) and Lord Jesus (Son) first, most, and always, even more than your life in the flesh, and the life of your loved ones, and love your neighbor as yourself. Treat others the way you want others to treat you, and the way you want to be treated on judgment day = the day of Jesus Christ = the day of vengeance of the Lord. Your faith is shown by your love. If you have no love, no good works, no compassion, and show no mercy, then your faith is false, and was never written in your heart.
    ____________________________________________________________________________

    With the love of God Almighty, our heavenly Father, that is in Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Son of the living God, Son of the Father,

    Your brother in Christ,

    Ari

    Pray for me for the desires of my heart as I have for you (KJV, Psalm 37: 4-7)

    If you want to write to me, then I want to write back to you.

    With love from above,

    Ari

  13. 13 Louise Goueffic 11 October, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Interesting blog Paul. You are well on the way to grasping the art of critical thinking. But you will not achieve it holding on to an ideology. Most ideologies are patriarchally based. Half the species is purposely suppressed or left out of the development of good reasoning. This means that half the truths are suppressed. This means that the task of civilizing the species runs on the half that dominated with his half-lies. Not a good or nice way of civilizing the species. Louise.

  14. 14 K-man 20 March, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Louise, your comment to Paul is a little condescending. Firstly, his comments suggests both a great aptitude for critical thinking and no adherence to an ideology at all.

    However, if by ideology you mean a system of axioms that one adheres to (which is not to say they are not aware them or that they do not question them) then there is a contradiction in the comment “you will not achieve it holding on to an ideology”.

    For example, my personal axioms are based on the scientific method. Happy to disucss exactly what I think this means if you so wish. But that I stick to this systems of thinking is ideological, in a loose sense, but by its very definition does not exclude half the population.

    Very interested on your thoughts.

  15. 15 Jose 26 April, 2012 at 12:01 am

    To me, We cant say the religion discouraged the Critical/ Creative thinking but for a long time Christian Church (not religion) did it. But the protestants and other religion especially Islam encouraged thinking and Critical evaluation of argument. Just now I finished reading of the translation of Quran, really we should read it. I think once we read it we will not say the religion discourage it. I think the problem is with our traditional Christians.. and but we used to blame others…

  16. 16 treatment for hair loss 9 April, 2013 at 11:14 pm

    I want to to thank you for this good read!! I definitely
    enjoyed every bit of it. I’ve got you bookmarked to look at new stuff you post…

  17. 17 foods that get rid of cellulite 2 May, 2013 at 11:42 pm

    Everyone loves what you guys are usually up too. This
    sort of clever work and exposure! Keep up
    the excellent works guys I’ve included you guys to my blogroll.

  18. 18 p2pfoundation.net 3 May, 2013 at 1:06 am

    Hi this is somewhat of off topic but I was wanting
    to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to
    manually code with HTML. I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  19. 19 car games for little boy 2 May, 2014 at 8:39 am

    I’m not that muchh of a onine reader too be honest but your blogs really nice,
    keep it up! I’ll goo ahead and bookmark your website to come back later.

    All the best

  20. 20 bookkeeping and accounting services columbus ohio 27 September, 2014 at 3:28 am

    It was not introduced as an accounting discipline but as part
    of mathematical procedures, which merchants could utilize in monitoring their assets, liabilities and investment exposure (capital).

    Audit-ready books also enable a company to make more knowledgeable decisions on a time-sensitive basis.
    When looking for accounting software for your business, what features matter most to you.
    Although it may seem counter intuitive, choosing to outsource can actually be more cost effective to a small
    business than having the work done in house.

  21. 21 General Liability Insurance 26 October, 2015 at 8:56 am

    Aw, this was an extremely good post. Taking the time and actual effort to generate a
    top notch article… but what can I say… I procrastinate a whole
    lot and never manage to get anything done.

  22. 22 Israel 21 January, 2016 at 1:22 am

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about baby towels.
    Regards

  23. 23 wrangler regular fit 21 January, 2016 at 7:05 pm

    I’ll immediately seize your rss ass I can’t to find your e-mail subscription link or
    e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly permit me kknow so that I could subscribe.
    Thanks.


  1. 1 Red Payments Trackback on 23 December, 2014 at 6:38 am
  2. 2 binary options Trackback on 17 May, 2015 at 9:29 pm
  3. 3 how to trade gold Trackback on 19 May, 2015 at 1:10 am
  4. 4 social media Trackback on 12 January, 2016 at 5:16 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Resources:

home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.

Reddit

Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

LeftNews.org

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 836,459 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: