THOTH

and when you attempt to tie "objective moaral truths" to the Dao - you are again off the mark. As anyone who understands the Dao would inherently realize that issues of right and wrong and such are internalized in us and in all things - apart from any need for a lawgiver or such - this is just silly (and they are realized by consulting the mind and the heart and understanding what is right and what is wrong - don't hurt others, be kind, that sort of thing - that anyone with a brain and heart should understand....simple). And most of the edicts of the 10 commandments and such would not even fall within consideration. (most of) These draconain pronouncements are so far removed from the Dao to be contrary to it - in just the same sense that modern civilization is removed from the Dao. Sure - if you stick to the Golden rule - do unto others - etc - your on the right ground....but beyond that...

Yes - you said it - you don't understand...obviously...and i wouldn't bother "bashing" God if it wasn't being shoved dowm my throat such. And acknowledging the Dao - is quite a bit different then believing in a patriarchial God or such - quite a bit different. One can acknowledge the Dao and have no belief whatsoever in any kind of an intelligent or aware god/gods of any kind - in fact I think believing in the latter is clearly against the whole concept of the Dao which basically assumes the divinity of the universe - as it were - with no thought to any sort of being apart from ourselves that we must apease or such - it assumes that we are all part of the godhood (for lack of a better word) and that through acting according to nature - according to our natural instincts are we embodying the Dao...and again - by definition - creating any kind of heirchical priesthood and judgemental belief system is entirely contrary to the Dao. I would agree with you though - much of our modern civilization is far removed from/ignorant of the Dao...(except for maybe some subsets of our culture - like many environmentalists and back to nature types that you despise so)... And with the Dao - it is not a question of why - just by stating this you display your ignorance.....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/...last/index.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123604,00.html

Who says its the way i want them to live? You advocated (at least in word though not action) adherence to a strict moral code - claim that ther is only balack & white - that sort of thing - I am not the one being judgemental. Idealy I would agree with you - and - again idealy - I would wish for no government...but the realities of the world - and that of unbridled human action - in a variety of shperes - personal, corporate etc - makes it clear that this is just not possible - there would be extreme abuses and massive irresponsibility - so we are just not quite ready. Like I said - when people stop believeing in fairy tales - like religion - then that will certainly be a sign that we have matured to the point were no governement is possible. in the meantime I do advocate self-governement - true democratic governement with citizen involvement (and accountability) to the maximum degree. And in that vein i have been very involved in local politics and civic activities in my community. Additionally - and I know you'll find this funny - but I back the lcal libertarian candidates (and in fact one of my neighbors has been the Libertarian candidate for Govener of my state) - so i imagine I've actually done a bit more to support Libertarian ideas then you have - (not that I am at all 100% with the Libertarian party - not at all - because they essentialy advocate turning the country over to Big Business - and if you think government is bad....). BTW - I seem to have gotten the very exact score as Stormy did - my dot is in the same left-libertarian spot as hers. that being said - the poll/quiz was incredibly biased to come up with such a result for just about everyone (IMO)....and I answered most of the questions with a maybe BTW....

Armenia Boldly Threatens To Veto Turkey's OSCE Chairmanship By Harut Sassounian Publisher, California Courier Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was in Washington last week to meet with various officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, and members of Congress. According to news reports, Minister Oskanian spoke with American officials about U.S.-Armenian relations, the Millennium Challenge Account, the latest developments in the Karabagh negotiations, issues related to Turkey, and the upcoming NATO Summit in Istanbul. While in Washington, the Foreign Minister also delivered a talk at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He covered Armenia's foreign policy, its democratic and economic challenges, and security needs. While the press covered various aspects of the Minister's talk, there was one important issue that was not mentioned in any of the news reports. During the question and answer period, Oskanian was asked for his views on the role of the OSCE in the Karabagh conflict and relations with Turkey. In his response, the Armenian Foreign Minister dropped a diplomatic bombshell. According to the transcript of the proceedings, he disclosed for the first time that Armenia would use its veto power to prevent Turkey from assuming the chairmanship of the OSCE. This is a very serious decision with far reaching consequences. If Armenia does carry out its threat, it would antagonize Turkey and would displease the United States, Ankara's long-time supporter. Here's the text of Minister Oskanian's answer: "OSCE does two things for security. One is negotiate the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, which is extremely important. The other one is the CFE treaty. It's a visionary thing. It's been extremely helpful - sets corridors for the member states for armaments and personnel. There's an inspection mechanism. Even Turkey can send inspection into Armenia; Armenia can send to Turkey or vice versa. So this provides balance and transparency in the region. So the OSCE indeed plays a very positive role on security matters in our region and we hope it will continue. "Turkey is a member of the OSCE. They aspire now to become chairman in office in 2007. Decisions at the OSCE are made by consensus. This puts us in an extremely difficult situation, and that decision has to be made this year during the ministerial meeting towards the end of this year, because there is the troika mechanism. The next year chairmanship we know who it is, the next year is already clear, so this year we need to decide who will be chairman in office of OSCE in 2007. And Turkey is the only candidate, and Armenia has the veto power, which we will use, because Turkey has not risen to the occasion. We cannot allow a country to be chairman in office with which we don't have diplomatic ties. We cannot allow a country to be chairman in office of OSCE which negotiates the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, and the chairman has certain rights and privileges that can be used against Armenia. And given their policy in these past 12 years towards the region, which has been extremely unbalanced, and given their unequivocal support and solidarity toward Azerbaijan and one-sided policy toward Nagorno Karabagh, Armenia simply - even if we want - cannot afford to have, for a whole year, Turkey as a chairman in office. "So these kinds of problems rise because Turkey has not risen to the occasion and has not given us the chance to look at Turkey differently. And this, as I said, puts us under a lot of pressure by different countries so that we accept Turkey as chairman in office, but it will be an extremely difficult political decision for Armenia." This is a gutsy decision by the Armenian government. It comes on the heels of a similar bold move announced just last month: Pres. Kocharian's refusal to go to Istanbul at the end of June to participate in the NATO Summit which would be attended by the leaders of most NATO member states, including Pres. Bush, French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the heads of state of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister Oskanian would represent Pres. Kocharian at that meeting. According to my sources, high-ranking U.S. officials are very unhappy with Armenia's intent to veto Turkey's OSCE Chairmanship. They have asked Armenia's leadership to reconsider their decision. While Armenia should not seek confrontation with the U.S., Armenia's leaders, in my opinion, have made the right decision in not catering to the whims and wishes of any foreign government whether it be the United States, Russia, France, China or Turkey. Armenia should only cater to its own national interest. It is incumbent on the Armenian-American community to counter those in the Bush Administration who are pressuring Armenia on this issue. Given the political clout of Armenian-Americans and the fact that this is an election year, we should use our voting power and financial muscle against those who want to force Armenia's leaders to do favors for Turkey. We need to back Armenia's strong stand on this issue. We hope that Armenia's leaders do not make the same mistake as in 1999 when they were talked by U.S. officials into dropping their veto of holding the OSCE Summit in Istanbul. In return, the State Department made the promise that "good things would happen to Armenia." Of course, after Armenia lifted its veto, the Americans forgot their promises and offered nothing in return. Armenia should stick to its guns. If the United States and Turkey desperately want the latter to assume the chairmanship of the OSCE, they would have to provide "good things," such as the lifting of the Turkish blockade or the recognition of the Genocide, in advance of Armenia lifting its veto. That way, Armenia's leaders would not end up holding an empty bag once again! This is one of the rare occasions when Armenia is holding a valuable trump card in its hands. It should use it to its maximum advantage!

I think that Turkey's decision not to send troops into Iraq was made with a number of considerations. First and foremost Turkey is risking an incredible backlash at home and the possibility of fanning the flames of (radical) Isalm wihtin its borders. Also Turkey has to live with whatever comes out of the mess called Iraq - as they are neighbors - and they have to at least some degree not alienate themselves from other Islamic countries - and being quick to the beck and call of the US would certainly not help them in this regard. And yes - I think Turkey realises that there is little to gain and much to lose and that they become clear targets when they associate with this effort and when their troops are out there in the line of fire (for who knows how long). And even once out - memories would not fade so fast - Turkey knows that there are those who wouldn't forgive their involvement. I also think the whole Kurdish situation obviously complicates things. And Turkey - I think - wnats the freedom to conduct its own actions on its own terms in regards to the Kurds and not to be tied into anyone elses game plane over there.

Well i finally found it...The Truth About Hell! http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

Yes - its amazing how many folks claim that God has spoken to them and that they have some divinely inspired knowledge - or even that they are the messiah - lol...(so just who are we to believe?)...and heh - even reincarnation.... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun22.html ...Moon declared himself the Messiah and said his teachings have helped Hitler and Stalin be "reborn as new persons." Moon has claimed to have spoken in "the spirit world" with all deceased U.S. presidents, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed and others. At the March 23 event, he said: "The founders of five great religions and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin . . . and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons." (Moon) delivered a long speech saying he was "sent to Earth . . . to save the world's six billion people. . . . Emperors, kings and presidents . . . have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent."

Anileve - totally agree...and then to take it to the next step - to assume that God has certain morality (that we could even comprehend) and that he (or they perhaps) are asking certain things of humans - and such....well its just absurd realy - its exactly - a leap of faith....just like when one really doesn't know the answer on a multiple choice test - that has an infinite number of possible answers...yet they are convinced that they will arrive at the right one - by pure guesswork! And any understanding of the physicals laws of time-space 9as mor eor less understood today) should make it plain - that any being or beings who exist accorss such - if indeed possible - and if indeed they have created us and more etc - well it would be pretty much impossible to share (or much care0 about our moralities & such. Is it possible that "God" is just the universe around us and all things in it - as a Diest or Daoist might believe? yes I supose and makes more sense then this jealous, vengeful God of the Bible)...but even to believe such is like you have said - giving a name to something that we cannot really know to be true...

surely you mock....

He is just a bit too sure...

Oh yes - the absurdaty of it all... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...19/ixworld.html

The Catholics are after you Sasun... Catholics urged to fight off New Age religions 19.06.2004 By PETER POPHAM Catholics from more than 25 countries have been in Rome this week to hammer out a strategy for combating the threat posed to Christianity by "New Age" religions and fads. "Astrologers believe that the Age of Pisces - known to them as the Christian age - is drawing to a close," explained an exhaustive report on the New Age produced by the Catholic Church last year. And as priests around the world watch their congregations die out and dwindle away through boredom or plain disbelief, the church believes the moment has come to fight back. Monsignor Peter Fleetwood, one of the authors of that report, said those at the closed-door conference include priests and lay-people from Latin America who are "worried they can be pushed out by something that has come from abroad", from Asia where "a lot of traditional religions are reviving". But for Fleetwood the greatest challenge may be in England and North America, "where the New Age began ... and where it has become such a part of everyday life that we don't notice it". That makes it harder to attack, he says. "Where one sees a threat, it's easier to battle it." This enemy has dozens of heads: the version of the Jewish Kabbalah espoused by Madonna, the Enneagram personality-reading cult, ancient Egyptian occult practices, Sufism, the lore of the Druids, Celtic Christianity, medieval alchemy, Renaissance hermeticism, yoga, Zen Buddhism, and many more. And despite the rank exoticism of so much of it, it is also the Enemy Within. As the report acknowledges, "In Western culture, in particular, the appeal of 'alternative' approaches to spirituality is very strong. New forms of psychological affirmation of the individual have become very popular among Catholics." Under the liberal dispensation of Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council, intrepid Catholic missionaries explored the religious traditions of lands where in the past their task would have been restricted to converting the heathen. In Japan, one Jesuit missionary became a Zen Buddhist roshi ("master"), without ceasing to be a Christian priest, becoming a reverse missionary, implanting Zen Buddhist ideas and practice in Catholic groups in Germany and elsewhere, where they continue to thrive. But Pope John Paul II's church is far less tolerant about practices that the Pope's so-called "enforcer of the faith", Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, has dismissed as "spiritual auto-eroticism". New Age is getting a grip on Christians because many are failing to find authentic spirituality in the church. They are failing to find, as the report put it, "the importance of man's spiritual dimension and its integration with the whole of life, the search for life's meaning, the link between human beings and the rest of creation, the desire for personal and social transformation, and the rejection of a rationalistic and materialistic view of humanity". But while one of the two "pontifical councils" involved in taking up the challenge is for "inter-religious dialogue", suggesting that the New Agers be dealt with on a similar footing to Muslims, Jews and indeed Anglicans, the Pope appears to see the issue as a simple matter of right and wrong. "We cannot delude ourselves," he says, that "this return of ancient Gnostic ideas will lead toward a renewal of religion." It is, he said, a way of distorting His Word, and is "in distinct, if not declared, conflict with all that is essentially Christian". The time for a decisive battle is clearly fast approaching. And the message to the faithful in the report's conclusion is plain: quit "shopping around in the world's fair of religious proposals". - INDEPENDENT

Thomas Jefferson: I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth. Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.

Adrian Barnett I have a problem with is the idea that atheists do not believe in an afterlife or a "meaning" to life, therefore they can have no respect for life and have no problem with killing people. It's as if we watch these horrors on the evening news and either roll about laughing, or think "Great! Another worthless life freed from this bleak torment." It may be stating the obvious, but it needs to be remembered that many wars, conflicts and persecutions throughout human history have been caused by religious belief of one sort or another. The idea that anyone who believes in a deity is physically incapable of performing any antisocial act is clearly ludicrous, and yet that is what the Religious Right seem to be pushing. If everyone believes in Jesus then there will instantly be no more crime, no more unhappiness, and I guess no more acne either. A moment's thought should be enough to realise that, if anything, atheists should have more respect for life. We know that this is the only life we get, and we are incredibly lucky to be conscious and aware of the amazing world we live in. We know that if someone's life ends, then that's the end of them. No afterlife, no reincarnation, nothing. Why on earth would we want to terminate someone's one and only chance at experiencing the pleasure of simply being alive?!? To turn it round a bit, if you believe that people simply "move on" into an afterlife of some sort, why should that promote respect for life now? If someone dies, hey so what, they'll just go to Heaven and spend trillions of years in extreme bliss. If people really thought that, then a major road-accident should be met with something between indifference and joy. They've gone to Heaven and when I get there I'll see them again (theists generally seem to have no doubts that they and their family/friends are going to Heaven). If this life is but the blink of an eye compared to our life after death, then why do theists get so upset when it is ended? How is teaching children that this life of a few decades is just a stepping stone to an afterlife of infinite duration and happiness going to instill in them a sense of respect for mortality? Of course, being taught that your actions here determine your fate afterwards is intended to encourage people to be good, but doesn't that just come down to the idea of "Behave or be punished"? Is it better to be good because you want Heaven and fear Hell, or because you can see that this is the only chance we get at life and everyone deserves the right to enjoy it as much as possible for as long as possible? Most people, regardless of their lifestyle, seem to think that they are definitely getting into Heaven. If they do something bad, it can always be rationalised away or repented for. If someone does think they're going to Hell, their family and friends will just rally round and talk them out of it, convincing them that God really forgives them as long as they're truly sorry. Atheists don't have that luxury. We recognise that we must accept responsibility for our own actions and be accountable for them. We can't just pray a bit and then assure people that God has forgiven us - that's for televangelists and presidents. Surely it's better to teach that this is the only life we get so make the world a better place and don't screw it up for yourself or others, than to teach that this life is insignificant compared with an eternity of bliss? Which you, of course, will get.

Adrian Barnett : Reasons I find religion offensive #17 I'm often told of the benefits of prayer. I'm told I should pray to thank God for my health, good job and wonderful family. If I pray, it seems, things will only get better. Presidents, monarchs and other world leaders pray to ask God to bless a decision, or a meeting, or a party, or a boat, or their country, or a war. ( How they are able to tell whether such a thing has been blessed or not, I am unaware. ) Many people also take it upon themselves to pray for nonbelievers such as myself, asking God to spare a little time in his day to fix my brain. Some people are convinced that their God occasionally, or invariably, answers their prayers. He helps them with their career, or their drug problem, or their marriage. He finds their lost keys, reserves a parking space in town, or ensures that their team wins the game. He heals their cancer, helps their relative to survive the operation, and makes them look round just in time to avoid the truck. If these things are to be believed, and these are the sorts of uses that the all-powerful Creator of the universe puts his omnipotence to, then He is either evil or stupid, or possibly both. Every time you think your God gets you to the train on time, a child dies screaming somewhere in the world. Each time God is called upon to "bless" a new armchair factory, a dozen people have the life crushed out of them in an earthquake. God is apparently too busy watching your football game to prevent the banks of a river bursting and washing a village off the map. He would rather "inspire" televangelists to beg for dollars than to "inspire" scientists with a simple and perfect cure for any of the incapacitating diseases that afflict humans. His time is better spent helping politicians solve refuse-collection problems than doing anything to stop his children persecuting and killing each other in his most merciful and loving name. Babies born in developed nations are called "blessings" and "little miracles", and prayers of thanks are spoken, distracting God from the women and babies dying all over the world where medicine and technology are inadequate to save them. Children take their pets to church for special kiddy services, where they are assured that Bobby The Cute Hamster will indeed go to Heaven, whilst thousands of God's other creations are busily eating, poisoning, infecting and parasitizing human beings the world over. No doubt they will also get to Heaven as long as they are cuddly enough. Daily, people call out to God before they are slaughtered by genocidal dictators, or die in the torture chamber because they were overheard making a joke about the president. God's time appears to be taken up by people thanking him for helping them with an exam, or for their unexpectedly meeting an old school friend. The people suffering a slow, agonizing death will just have to wait, sorry. Why don't I pray to God, to offer thanks, or ask for help, or just to chat? Because I do not believe there is a God to hear any prayers, let alone answer them. If there is a God, and he chooses to hear the trivial prayers of the healthy and well-off above the screams of the dying, then he must be a monster worthy of neither respect nor worship, but only contempt from any civilized being. No, I will not pray to your God - I wouldn't wish to interrupt his busy schedule of key-finding and game-blessing.

John Adams, the country's second president: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all." From: The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

(yet) More Thomas Paine: As priestcraft was always the enemy of knowledge, because priestcraft supports itself by keeping people in delusion and ignorance, it was consistent with its policy to make the acquisition of knowledge a real sin. The Church of Rome having done this, it then brings forward Jesus the son of Mary as suffering death to redeem mankind from sin, which Adam, it says, had brought into the world by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge. But as it is impossible for reason to believe such a story, because it can see no reason for it, nor have any evidence of it, the Church then tells us we must not regard our reason, but must believe, as it were, and that through thick and thin, as if God had given man reason like a plaything, or a rattle, on purpose to make fun of him. Reason is the forbidden tree of priestcraft, and may serve to explain the allegory of the forbidden tree of knowledge, for we may reasonably suppose the allegory had some meaning and application at the time it was invented. It was the practice of the Eastern nations to convey their meaning by allegory, and relate it in the manner of fact. Jesus followed the same method, yet nobody ever supposed the allegory or parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the Prodigal Son, the ten Virgins, etc., were facts. Why then should the tree of knowledge, which is far more romantic in idea than the parables in the New Testament are, be supposed to be a real tree? The answer to this is, because the Church could not make its new-fangled system, which it called Christianity, hold together without it. To have made Christ to die on account of an allegorical tree would have been too barefaced a fable. But the account, as it is given of Jesus in the New Testament, even visionary as it is, does not support the creed of the Church that he died for the redemption of the world. According to that account he was crucified and buried on the Friday, and rose again in good health on the Sunday morning, for we do not hear that he was sick. This cannot be called dying, and is rather making fun of death than suffering it. There are thousands of men and women also, who if they could know they should come back again in good health in about thirty-six hours, would prefer such kind of death for the sake of the experiment, and to know what the other side of the grave was. Why then should that which would be only a voyage of curious amusement to us, be magnified into merit and suffering in him? If a God, he could not suffer death, for immortality cannot die, and as a man his death could be no more than the death of any other person. The belief of the redemption of Jesus Christ is altogether an invention of the Church of Rome, not the doctrine of the New Testament. What the writers of the New Testament attempted to prove by the story of Jesus is the resurrection of the same body from the grave, which was the belief of the Pharisees, in opposition to the Sadducees (a sect of Jews) who denied it. Paul, who was brought up a Pharisee, labors hard at this for it was the creed of his own Pharisaical Church: I Corinthians xv is full of supposed cases and assertions about the resurrection of the same body, but there is not a word in it about redemption. This chapter makes part of the funeral service of the Episcopal Church. The dogma of the redemption is the fable of priestcraft invented since the time the New Testament was compiled, and the agreeable delusion of it suited with the depravity of immoral livers. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores. It is a doctrine not only dangerous to morals in this world, but to our happiness in the next world, because it holds out such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven, as has a tendency to induce men to hug the delusion of it to their own injury. But there are times when men have serious thoughts, and it is at such times, when they begin to think, that they begin to doubt the truth of the Christian religion; and well they may, for it is too fanciful and too full of conjecture, inconsistency, improbability and irrationality, to afford consolation to the thoughtful man. His reason revolts against his creed. He sees that none of its articles are proved, or can be proved.

More Thomas Paine....(concerning the Age of Reason..and enlightenment...) http://www.deism.com/paine_essay06.htm

O none of the above (perhaps a variation on yoru last choice...but no problem askign questions - just don't really expect any actual answers...) Life happens...and we make choices based on our inner drives (and howmuch we let other's influence us) and of course a certain amount of luck/random interaction...it just is - and there is no use worrying about it or attempting to point fingers and such..we must just make do with what we've got and appreciate it as well - and we should always try to make our path through life one in which we can say/think we have done something that made things better for others and for our surroundings..

Well yes I supose you did mention it...believe me I have better things to do then to bug your phone...lol But seriously - very sorry to hear that you are so down...and its probably just a phase - from a cumulation of stresses. You should go out and do something really fun - with someone you really like/get along with - and rediscover joy in your life. But yes - as we get older and become more responsible many/most folks develop this adult attitude of not having/being fun anymore...and it is such a shame - makes out world a colder place. Even with added responsibilities and all that goes with such - burdens on ones time, worries, crisises etc etc - one must always find the time (and never give up the perspective) that life is a great joy and that there is so much beauty and so much of true interest and wonder...and you know - as many things as you have to get you down you really must be thankful for all that you have - a great many people are much much worse off in the world and truly have little hope of improving their lot..and most don't even have access to a finely made and enjoyable (but certainly overpriced) latte...

More of interest to unbelieers and those who question...etc http://www.deism.com/biblevotes.htm http://www.deism.com/monsters.htm http://www.deism.com/paine_essay02.htm etc

aww it will be Ok - don't worry so much...everyone gets a speeding ticket sometime in their lives...