The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Is Theism a Religion?

December 13, 2006 | 40 Comments

Pete Blackwell lists various reasons why atheism is not a religion: (1) there is no God, (2) there is no common belief, (3) there are no laws, (4) there is no church or ritual, (5) there is no unified conception of spirituality, (6) there is no scripture, (7) there is no priesthood, (8) there is no tradition, (9) there is no founder, (10) there are no holidays (11) there is no identifying clothing, (12) there is no concept of the afterlife and (13) there is no creation myth. The first commenter however, raises this objection:

It is true that atheism is not a religion. But then, based on your arguments above, neither is theism! Theists believe one thing in common: there is a god (or gods). That’s all. Beyond that, they may have nothing in common.

The commenter is wrong only to the extent that it can be argued that theism is always a religion because God-belief alone is sufficient to make it so. But insofar as the debate over whether something is a religion involves more than merely whether it declares a god-belief — which Blackwell obviously thinks it does, or he would have stopped at No . 1 — the commenter has a point. There are many forms of atheism that contain some or almost all of the elements of Nos. 2 through 13 and can therefore be considered “religious.” To say that none of those elements are necessary to atheism may be technically true, but none of them are necessary to theism either, which is the point I think the commenter was trying to make.

The main reason, however, that people raise the accusation that “atheism is a religion” doesn’t have to do with any of the factors on Blackwell’s list. Usually, the point being made is that “atheism is just another belief” which depends on faith as much as any form of theism. And this may be true with respect to some atheists, particularly those who are uninterested in theology and who disbelieve primarily for political or emotional reasons.

Of course, many atheists assert that their beliefs are based solely on logic and observation and point out that faith is not a necessary feature of disbelief. But this does not mean that a faith versus reason distinction is the primary dividing line between atheism and theism. First, there are many theists who assert (even if wrong) who purport to ground their beliefs solely in logic and science — even Bertrand Russell (as Richard Dawkins points out in The God Delusion) was briefly convinced of the merits of the ontological argument. Second, logic and science aren’t necessary features of atheism, which may rest on no reasons, bad reasons, or, as noted above, faith.

Comments

40 Responses to “Is Theism a Religion?”

  1. "Q" the Enchanter
    December 13th, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

    As the saying goes, atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.

    Of course religious belief has some things in common with atheist belief. But then it also has some things in common with, say, economic belief, scientific belief, horticultural belief, or culinary belief. Obviously, though, such similarities don’t render economics, science, gardening and cooking “religions.”

  2. "Q" the Enchanter
    December 13th, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

    As the saying goes, atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.

    Of course religious belief has some things in common with atheist belief. But then it also has some things in common with, say, economic belief, scientific belief, horticultural belief, or culinary belief. Obviously, though, such similarities don’t render economics, science, gardening and cooking “religions.”

  3. nix
    December 13th, 2006 @ 2:22 pm

    Theism and atheism are different sides of the same coin. I reject the coin. To a theist, I suppose I’m atheist because I reject their beliefs. What am I relative to an atheist since I reject the need for disbelieve?

    Nada Nunca

  4. Godthorn
    December 13th, 2006 @ 2:57 pm

    Nix, you would qualify as a skeptic or agnostic.

    Believers (genuine or so-called) often need to charge the atheist with “faith” or as “religious” as a psychological defense and a desparate argument against the atheist’s logic. An atheist denies the claims of religion, and hence is by definition nonreligious.

  5. Aric Clark
    December 13th, 2006 @ 3:33 pm

    The irony in all this is that there is no religion called “theism”. No one participates in “theistic” rituals or goes to “theistic” churches. Theism is a title given to people of many different religions who believe in a god or gods and is therefore no more a religion than atheism is.

    In the same vein atheism does not deny the claims of religion it denies the existence of a god. Those things are different. It would be possible to conceive of religious atheists – ie: many Buddhists. Just as it would be possible to conceive of areligious theists – many people who call themselves Christian, but do not attend church or otherwise practice their “religion” actually fit in this camp. As do many of the people you meet nowadays who say “I believe in God, but I’m not for institutionalized religion”.

    Much confusion in debate happens when people are too loose with these terms.

  6. Rod Rutledge
    December 13th, 2006 @ 3:56 pm

    Yep.

    I am making the point that Peter Blackwell is pointing out some things that I don’t think matter when it comes to creating a religion. First would be the belief that there is no God. I don’t think that denies atheism being a religion. Religion is simply a way of life, the combination of personal philosophy and outside influences; it is these outside influences that are often institutionalized religions. This does not deny atheism as being a “religion”. Having no church and ritual also fall into this category, as one need not go to church every Sunday to be a Christian. Being exempt of any concept of the afterlife doesn’t count into being a religion; it varies for different belief systems, as well as a lack of a creation myth.

    However, I agree with his statements about having no common beliefs, no real laws, no unified conception of spirituality, no traditions, no founders, and no identifying clothing are valid. These are things that are present in almost all religions. I, being an atheist, don’t believe that there is such a thing as “true” atheism, as per the no True Scotsman fallacy, seeing as how the individuality of each atheist is preserved through experience and uniqueness.

  7. Cthulance
    December 13th, 2006 @ 10:19 pm

    “But this does not mean that a faith versus reason distinction is the primary dividing line between atheism and theism. First, there are many theists who assert (even if wrong) who purport to ground their beliefs solely in logic and science”

    If you purport something that is in error, this does not invalidate a very real distinction.

    “Second, logic and science aren’t necessary features of atheism, which may rest on no reasons, bad reasons, or, as noted above, faith.”

    Yet this does nothing to assail the superiority of the atheist position, based in logic and science and skepticism.

  8. Godthorn
    December 13th, 2006 @ 10:19 pm

    Methinks we need to come to terms here. The dictionary definition of Religion is belief in and/or worship of a god or gods. The dictionary definition of Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. It seems logical to me that the definition of Atheism precludes the belief in or practice of a religion. Now, there are secondary or derivative definitions of Religion and Religious, as exemplified in such statements as “Football is his religion,” and “She’s religious about her coifure.” So, granted: in a casual, figurative sort of application, you might say that some atheists are religious in or about their atheism. But there is nothing to be gained for reason in attempting to blur the distinctions between polar opposites.

    For the record, I am an atheist and I am not religious. I was very religious until I was 15, and I understand the compelling nature of belief. But all beliefs in the supernatural are nonsensical. We have no more reason for belief in a “God” than we have for belief in fairies or in haunted houses. Unicorns (nonmagical ones) could be real; ghosts could not be.

  9. Cthulance
    December 13th, 2006 @ 10:24 pm

    “But this does not mean that a faith versus reason distinction is the primary dividing line between atheism and theism.”

    No, the primary dividing line between atheism and theism is reality.

  10. Godthorn
    December 14th, 2006 @ 1:06 am

    As to the question that titles RA’s comment, the proper answer is “Of course not!” The term “theism” is a generic that designates all forms of belief in a singular supreme being. “A religion” signifies a particular belief system that may or may not be theistic.

  11. JJ
    December 14th, 2006 @ 2:28 am

    Let’s review Blackwell’s summary of atheism. (1) there is no God, True, they believe that.
    (2) there is no common belief,
    Can this be true? “There is no God” is a common belief… among atheists.
    (3) there are no laws,
    Isn’t “there is no God” a law?
    (4) there is no church or ritual,
    Atheists don’t congregate, fellowship with each other? Did I miss something?
    (5) there is no unified conception of spirituality,
    Except that they all agree on this point is a unified conception of spirituality.
    (6) there is no scripture,
    There are no declarations that all atheists praise?
    Example: atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.

    (7) there is no priesthood,
    Not even Father Bertrand Russell?
    (8) there is no tradition,
    No Burning Man, no Freethinker fellowships?
    (9) there is no founder,
    No Nietzsche, no Joseph Campbell?
    (10) there are no holidays
    No winter solstice in lieu of Christmas? No 4/20 – Marijuana Day?
    (11) there is no identifying clothing,
    Then why can I tell an atheist a half a block away?
    (12) there is no concept of the afterlife
    If atheists agree on this then why do they argue that it would be a bad idea?
    and (13) there is no creation myth.
    Abiogenesis 1:1 – self-creation based on the need to be created?

    I think the first commenter was pointing out that orthodoxy, not faith, is just as prevalent amongst atheists as theists. I think he’s right.

  12. The Power of Greyskull
    December 14th, 2006 @ 6:46 am

    Let’s review Blackwell’s summary of atheism.
    (1) there is no God, True, they believe that.
    (2) there is no common belief,
    Can this be true? “There is no God” is a common belief… among atheists.

    YES

    (3) there are no laws,
    Isn’t “there is no God” a law?

    NO IT ISN’T

    (4) there is no church or ritual,
    Atheists don’t congregate, fellowship with each other? Did I miss something?

    YES YOU DID MISS SOMETHING

    (5) there is no unified conception of spirituality,
    Except that they all agree on this point is a unified conception of spirituality.

    NOT TRUE, MANY ATHEISTS HAVE SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES DIFFERENT FROM OTHERS. SOME MEDITATE, SOME DON’T.

    (6) there is no scripture,
    There are no declarations that all atheists praise?
    Example: atheism is a religion like baldness is a hair color.

    WHICH ISN’T SCRIPTURE…. SO…?

    (7) there is no priesthood,
    Not even Father Bertrand Russell?

    NOT EVEN BERTRAND RUSSELL

    (8) there is no tradition,
    No Burning Man, no Freethinker fellowships?

    NO

    (9) there is no founder,
    No Nietzsche, no Joseph Campbell?

    NO

    (10) there are no holidays
    No winter solstice in lieu of Christmas? No 4/20 – Marijuana Day?

    NO

    (11) there is no identifying clothing,
    Then why can I tell an atheist a half a block away?

    I CALL BULLSHIT ON THIS ONE

    (12) there is no concept of the afterlife
    If atheists agree on this then why do they argue that it would be a bad idea?

    WHAT?

    and (13) there is no creation myth.
    Abiogenesis 1:1 – self-creation based on the need to be created?

    NO MYTHS, RESERVATION OF JUSDMENT UNTIL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS OTHERWISE.

    I think the first commenter was pointing out that orthodoxy, not faith, is just as prevalent amongst atheists as theists. I think he’s right.

    NO HE IS NOT.

  13. Kate B.
    December 14th, 2006 @ 8:57 am

    Actually, Godthorn, the dictionary.com 1st definition of religion is
    “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

    So, religion is a cause, an agency (superhuman is specified; supernatural is not), observances, and morals. Yeah, I can think of atheists whose atheism fits that bill.

  14. Thorngod
    December 14th, 2006 @ 11:11 am

    Kate B, anyone who believes the universe to be the creation of a “superhuman” or supernatural agency is no atheist.

    But why are you eager to accuse atheists of supernatural belief?

    I have no problem with the definition you quoted, though you misconstrued it somewhat in your rephrasing. But Dictionary.com is not the only, nor the foremost among dictionaries.

    -Godthorn.

  15. Kate B.
    December 14th, 2006 @ 11:29 am

    I didn’t accuse anyone of supernatural belief. The dictionary sayd “superhuman”–are you trying to tell me that evolution is an act of human agency? Or that the Big Bang happened because somebody wanted it to?

    You brought up the dictionary definition; I followed your lead. I’ve met atheists who believe in the superhuman without believing in the supernatural. Your problem with that is?

  16. Thorngod
    December 14th, 2006 @ 12:03 pm

    Kate B, I’m not trying to tell you any such thing, and I don’t know how your confusion there arose. And as to “superhuman,” as far as I’m aware, that means merely exceptionally human, as per Neitsche’s “superman.” Belief in the possibility of “better” or “improved” or exceptional humans does not qualify as a religious belief.

  17. Kate B.
    December 14th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

    According to which definition? You’ve mentioned a “dictionary definition” but haven’t cited it. According to the definition I cited, belief in Nietzsche’s superman qualifies as a religious belief if that superman has to do with an origin story.

    All I’ve said, Thorngod, is that according to a “dictionary definition,” yes, some atheists can be accused of holding religious beliefs. That’s all. You haven’t provided a dictionary definition that proves otherwise. What’s more, you are discussing atheism as if it were monolithic, which it is not. I have not said, “All atheists are religious.” You’ve said “None are” according to a vague definition applied in an overly general fashion. And I dispute the validity of your methods in reaching such a conclusion.

  18. Thorngod
    December 14th, 2006 @ 1:58 pm

    This is getting rediculous.

    The primary definition of “religious” is belief in and/or worship of a god or gods. The definition of “atheism” is disbelief in a god or gods. It follows that an atheist cannot be religious in the primary meaning of that term. If you insist, however, that some atheists worship the ground you don’t walk on and consequently may qualify as “religious,” you will get no argument from me.

  19. Kate B.
    December 14th, 2006 @ 2:00 pm

    Primary definition according to whom? Cite your source, Thorngod. The example atheist Buddhists has already been raised; your definition doesn’t touch them–how do you account for them?

  20. qedpro
    December 14th, 2006 @ 2:02 pm

    So let me get this straight

    If i believe that 2+2 = 4 does that make me a matheist?

    Or does it just mean that I have used logic and fact to make the connection.
    Perhaps the term belief is used improperly.

    We don’t really believe that 2+2=4 we just know it.

    That’s what atheism is.

  21. phusikoi
    December 14th, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

    Um, in response to a previous comment, I wouldn’t call Bertrand Russell the “founder of atheism”, nor any other famous atheist. Just because they were influential and brilliant doesn’t mean they’re really the founders. That would basically mean that they were the first to truly disbelieve. I wouldn’t believe that for a minute; besides, who needs a founder? I think people spend most of their time in institutionalized churches revering their god or gods, and the rest of the time, their founder. Of course, in the case of Christianity, they are pretty much the same………..

    As well, there is no such thing as a “true atheist”, as stated in another previous post. So trying to limit the scope of what an atheist must be is rather pointless. I would almost call that bigotry, trying to define what a person is. If I didn’t fit within your definition, could I still be an atheist? If the answer is no, I am afraid that I might be forced out of my beliefs by Webster.

  22. Thorngod
    December 14th, 2006 @ 4:25 pm

    Buddha denied that he was a god, and denied the existence of a god or gods. But when he died, his followers made him one–more or less–though they declaim otherwise. Or perhaps I should say that most of them wish to. Buddhism, like Christianity, has as many offspring as Medusa has snakes in her head. To the extent that any division of Buddhism holds beliefs in a supernatural realm, a god or gods is implied, whether claimed or not. And any Buddhist that does not believe in a god, or in the supernatural, is not religious and is therefore a “Buddhist atheist” or a “Buddhist agnostic.”

  23. Aric Clark
    December 14th, 2006 @ 4:27 pm

    Thorngod,

    I’m afraid your definition of religion simply doesn’t fly. What you’ve said “a belief in a god or gods” is theism, not religion. Though dealing with these kinds of complex linguistic phenomena that have large semantic fields makes it difficult to nail down a single definition everyone will agree on and different dictionaries will doubtless disagree to a certain extent almost every dictionary would define religion in such a way that it includes Buddhism, Sikhism and other religions that have prominent atheist schools within them. Theism and Atheism are not as you seem to be trying to make them about religion or areligion faith or non-faith. They are simply about a belief in a god or no-god. This means it is perfectly possible to be an irreligious theist or a religious atheist. You may find it silly or objectionable, but the fact is… since you are so fond of facts, that there ARE religious atheists – meaning people who belong to a faith tradition and practice their beliefs, but do not have a belief in a deity.

  24. Aric Clark
    December 14th, 2006 @ 4:34 pm

    Thorngod,

    Furthermore, you keep improperly extending the linguistic bounds of atheism to include a disbelief in everything that is supernatural. That simply isn’t justified. There are many atheists who like you disbelieve the supernatural – they are technically called naturalist atheists. Atheism itself however, is only about what the word itself suggests – no god. I don’t really understand why it is so uncomfortable for you to accept that there are a diversity of atheists just as there are a diversity of theists. You seem to want to hold to some purist definition of atheism that says you can ONLY be an atheist if you deny any and all manifestations of the supernatural and believe that the universe is governed entirely by natural law, cause and effect and observable phenomena. You’re combinining different intellectual “doctrines” (because that’s what they are – doctrines) and trying to put them all under one word where they don’t really belong.

  25. Aric Clark
    December 14th, 2006 @ 4:46 pm

    Thorngod,

    Finally, your comment on Buddhism demonstrates again a propensity to make sweeping unsupportable generalizations that expose a pre-existing agenda and a total lack of objectivity. You can’t begin by telling other people what they “really believe” whether they admit it or not, conflate the supernatural and the concept of god as though they were indistinguishable and still think your argument holds water. That is the same as me or anyone else attempting to co-opt your position by saying whether you acknowledge it or not you really do have faith in a god even though you call that god “science” or “the universe” or whatever else… you would say bullshit to that and a Buddhist would be just as correct to shout bullshit back at you for arrogantly attempting to define their beliefs for them just so you can maintain a bankrupt association between religion and theism as though they were one and the same thing.

  26. Thorngod
    December 14th, 2006 @ 5:42 pm

    Holy shit! I’m in transit, will respond to the worst charges asap.

  27. Joe
    December 14th, 2006 @ 9:59 pm

    Thorngod buddy

    You just got taken to the shed….

    I look forward to your rebuttal

  28. Godthorn
    December 14th, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

    A.C., theism is not “a belief in a god or gods.” It is monotheistic belief.

    The word “religion” is almost as ill-abused as the word “love,” but its primary meaning involves belief in and worship of something supernatural. In the context of a theological discussion, it should be kept fairly close to that definition.

    Yes, Buddhism is a religion, generally speaking. I did not dispute that. I also agreed that a Buddhist could be an atheist, in the same way that I, being a “Christian” of a sort, am an atheist. But your term “irreligious theist” is just a colorful description of a tartuffian or a dolt, and the concoction “religious atheist” is some sort of gorgoyle.

    In answer to your opening charge in #23, I confess to a tendency to extend the meaning of “atheism” somewhat beyond mere disbelief in gods. But after all, what’s a heaven for, if not gods? Any atheist who believes in the supernatural is a very strange atheist. In that wondrous realm of ghosts, fairies, angels and souls, it would seem reasonable to assume a headmaster of sorts, or at least a panel of judges. Perhaps our hypothetical atheist is being too strict in his definition of “god.” Or perhaps he is not really an atheist, but just likes the sound of the name or the notoriety of the label.

    No, it is not “so uncomfortable” at all to me to recognize differences in atheists. I revel in my differences, as much from atheists as from believers. I would experience an extreme discomfort at discovering someone who agreed with me in almost everything.

    To #24: I do not presume to tell Buddhists or anyone else what they believe. I am telling you and everyone else what some of them believe. There are few distortions either you or I could concoct about Buddhism, Christianity, or any other diverse religious faith that would not fairly fit at least a few members of the bunch. That is one of the characteristic features of any such irrational organism. One fool’s interpretation of its “gospel” is no more falsifiable than any other, and all that’s needed to turn a heresy into a going concern is a few more likeminded fools.

  29. nix
    December 15th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm

    Godthorn, I’m not agnostic. See my response at churchofnix.org

  30. Thorngod
    December 15th, 2006 @ 2:05 pm

    It just seemed an appropriate label, Nix; but, of course, if you can both not believe and not not believe, I’m somewhat impressed and I apologize for my mislabling.

  31. Paul M
    December 24th, 2006 @ 1:14 am

    Theism is not a religion, and not all religions are theistic. Atheism and theism are two theological points of view. Certainly many if not most religions have definite theological positions, but that is not all that they are.

  32. Cthulance
    December 31st, 2006 @ 12:34 am

    “Any atheist who believes in the supernatural is a very strange atheist. In that wondrous realm of ghosts, fairies, angels and souls, it would seem reasonable to assume a headmaster of sorts, or at least a panel of judges.”

    You can easily believe in the supernatural while being an atheist. Why is it more reasonable to assume a ‘headmaster’ in a supernatural realm rather than in a natural realm? Atheists just don’t believe in a Headmaster, regardless of what else they believe. I myself believed in the supernatural long after I discarded belief in any god. It was only skepticism and rational thought which led me eventually to also discard belief in the supernatural.

    Happy New Year, Raving Atheist! May it bring you renewed skepticism and rationality.

  33. Godthorn
    December 31st, 2006 @ 1:18 pm

    Here onEarth, there are “headmasters” all over the place. Obviously, one can be an atheist by being born into an atheistic family, or become an atheist through emotional revolt from a domineering parent or such, and in such cases a head can remain filled with all sorts of other nonsense; but anyone who’s come to atheism through reason is surely unlikely to retain other beliefs of a supernatural sort. Instead of “strange atheist,” I should probably have said “inconsistent” or “incongrous.”

  34. Godthorn
    January 1st, 2007 @ 2:14 am

    It’s 2007 already! Here beneath the avalanche of my rocky thoughts, a boulder of dire implication shoulders past at breakbone speed, repulsing my open-armed invitation to it to pause and communicate, to discourse on the conflicted interests of life and inert matter. Sore of arms and digits, I retreat to mull over once more the vexing problem, to reflect once again on the obstreperousness of natural events, awed by the inexplicable capacity of mute things to capture and hold the high ground of existence.

    Ah, well. Happy new year!

  35. David C
    January 9th, 2007 @ 3:56 pm

    I must respond to one of JJ’s comments.

    I don’t see how Joseph Campbell could be considered a founder of modern secular atheism since Campbell wasn’t an atheist.

    Campbell considered theism and atheism to be two sides of a single mistake: The word “God” properly refers to that which is ontologically prior to existence and nonexistence. So to ask if “God” exists is to ask a meaninless question!

    For what its worth I agree with Campbell’s take on the matter. When I watch theists and atheists argue all I see are dueling idolatries. But perhaps that’s a topic for another time.

  36. Thorngod
    January 9th, 2007 @ 4:56 pm

    From the looks of things, there may not be “another time” here.
    But just what can be meant by “prior to existence AND nonexistence”? And where does Campbell get off trying to distort the meaning of my favorite word?

  37. Thorngod
    January 9th, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

    David C, I forgot to ask: Have you seen my idol. I must have misplaced it somewhere.

  38. David C
    January 9th, 2007 @ 9:45 pm

    Well, Thorngod, that other time may come at a later date on another post or it may not. Only time will tell.

    As for your idol, I don’t know you well enough to know everything you worship. But I’d guess your own ego is on the list.

    Regarding Campbell, for him the word “God” by itself did not refer to Yahweh from the Bible or any other diety. It was rather the general reference for what dieties properly symbolized: ultimate reality. Since this is the source of all the categories of our experience, including existence and nonexistence, to ask whether “God” exists or not is to ask a meaningless question.

    Or as Heidegger put it more succinctly, “Being is not a being.”

  39. Godthorn
    January 9th, 2007 @ 10:39 pm

    I have never confused being with a subject. The only thing I was questioning was your (and Campbell’s?)reference to nonexistence. Nonexistence cannot be a category of experience, either for a mortal or for the Absolute. As to “God,” I agree. I never say or write “If God exists….” I say “If God is….” The ultimate block to enlightening any God-believer is his or her inability to grasp the necessary totality implied by the concept.

  40. Momus
    January 12th, 2007 @ 8:02 am

    I find Pete Blackwell’s structure for his argument that Atheism is not a religion clarifying. Applied to my view of American Atheists they are: 1. The US is God. 2. All Americans believe in the US. 3. The US has many laws 4. Presidents are deemed supernatural and the congress acts with pompous tradition. 5. The unifying spirituality is the vote which an even greater percentage of Atheists practice than the so called theists. 6. The scripture is the Constitution which was handed down by the fathers of this great nation. 7. The priesthood is mostly white, over fifty and privileged. 8. The tradition goes deeply that the US, the crudest form of democracy, is a shining example. Tradition makes reform of any aspect of governance impossible. 9. Founders are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. 10. 4th of July 11. Atheists dress like other Americans. 12. Atheists believe the US will exist forever and has that right. 13. The Creation myth is the Declaration of Independence.

    A greater majority of Americans believe in the US as God than the myth of God because the US seems tangible, but it would not exist but for that belief.

    American Atheists who vote share all the characteristics common to all belief systems.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links