Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinesh D'Souza on Life After Death: The Atheist Delusion
Beliefnet ^ | Dinesh D'Souza

Posted on 02/28/2010 1:53:01 PM PST by NYer

In this provocative essay, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the atheist critique of life after death is actually irrational. He takes on Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and more to say their arguments lack evidence.

Recently I saw atheist Richard Dawkins being interviewed on Bill Maher's television show, and Dawkins declared that he wanted to have his own death videotaped. Asked why he might contemplate such a strange thing, Dawkins replied that he was sure religious believers would spread rumors that he had converted on his deathbed, and he wanted to make sure there was a record to show he did not.

Equally insistent about maintaining his unbelief in the face of death is philosopher Daniel Dennett. A few years ago, Daniel Dennett went in for a serious nine-hour heart operation that could well have been fatal. It was, Dennett admits, a "harrowing experience" which tested his atheism. In an essay published after his recovery, Dennett wrote his atheism emerged quite intact and in some ways strengthened.

Reviewing these episodes, I am intrigued that these two leading atheists seem willing to go to their deaths without taking seriously the possibility of life after death. In other words, they act as if they know that there is no such life. And this is the "knowledge" that Dawkins and Dennett are disseminating in their books and articles. So what do they know that we don't, and how did they come to know it?

The atheist confidence that there is no afterlife is, of course, matched by the religious believer's confidence that there is. Ask a Christian if there is survival beyond the grave and he or she will answer, "Of course there is." Pretty soon you are getting the full details about what such a life will be like in the good place and the bad place. When you demand sources for such a thorough account, you find that they are the familiar ones: The Old Testament, the gospels, the Book of Revelation. When I raised this issue with a member of my church, he pointed to a sticker in the parking lot, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it."

Evidence of this sort makes atheists apoplectic. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris writes, "Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever."

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, wryly comments that no one has ever met a dead guy who came back to report on the afterlife. Lots of people have died, and none have filed reports or presented themselves for television interviews to give us the riveting details about what we can expect on the other side. Shermer's contention is that the believer has no good arguments for asserting that there is life after death. The believer's view is held in the complete absence of evidence. It is an assertion not of reason but of faith.

Shermer makes a good point, but it can easily be turned around. What does the atheist know that the religious believer doesn't? Nothing at all. Atheists haven't interviewed dead people any more than believers have. Nor have any atheists themselves crossed the river in death's boat to discover what lies on the other side. Death remains, as Hamlet tell us, the undiscovered country, and even the ghost tells the young prince, "I am forbid to tell the secrets of my prison house."

The bottom line is that the atheist has no better proof that there isn't life after death than the believer has that there is. Both groups are claiming knowledge that neither group actually possesses. For the atheist, no less than for the believer, it is entirely a matter of faith.

This equivalence between atheism and belief might seem equally damaging to both positions, but in fact it poses a much bigger problem for atheism. First, the faith of the believer at least has a plausible source. That source is divine revelation as expressed in a sacred text. So the believer is trusting in what is held to be an unimpeachable source, namely God. From where, by contrast, does the atheist get his faith? Who or what is the atheist trusting for the determination that there is no afterlife?

To this, the atheist typically replies that he is trusting in reason. Sam Harris writes that the truly rational person makes "the same evidentiary demands in religious matters that we make in all others." Richard Dawkins writes, "I believe not because of reading a holy book but because I have studied the evidence."

In this case, however, Harris and Dawkins have rejected the afterlife on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. How, then, do atheists convince themselves that they know things when they actually don't? The answer, surprisingly enough, has to do with a profound misunderstanding of science. In a famous incident a few decades ago, a group of Soviet cosmonauts returned from a space mission with the triumphant announcement that they had searched and searched but not found God. On this basis the cosmonauts affirmed the Communist doctrine that there is no God. I suppose by the same evidence the cosmonauts could have declared that there is no heaven.

When I mentioned this incident to the atheist writer Christopher Hitchens, he laughed and said, "It's hard to believe those guys were really that naïve." Hitchens understood right away that the Soviets were looking for God in all the wrong places. They were still captive to the medieval picture of heaven "up there" and hell "way down below" and earth somewhere in the middle. But for many centuries now religious believers have asserted that God and heaven can only be found in realms that transcend the universe. Imagine poor Hamlet running around the castle saying, "I've looked everywhere, and I can't find Shakespeare. I'm forced to conclude that Shakespeare does not exist."

In his book God: The Failed Hypothesis, physicist Victor Stenger writes that the issue of life after death is a scientific question. The problem, however, is that "no claimed connection with a hereafter has ever been verified…in controlled scientific experiments." Biologist Francis Crick writes that if religious believers "really believe in a life after death, why do they not conduct sound experiments to establish it?"

The answer to Crick's question is that most religious believers probably don't care whether their belief in the afterlife meets scientific tests; they don't believe in it on that basis. As practicing scientists, one might have expected that Crick or Stenger would suggest some experiments that could help decide the issue. If the claim that "there is life after death" is a scientific hypothesis, then it seems reckless to reject it without even attempting an empirical refutation. Even so Crick and Stenger do reject it, causing me to wonder if these gentlemen routinely adopt opinions in the absence of facts.

Such a criticism is a bit unfair, however, because as many atheists realize, there are no controlled empirical experiments that can resolve the issue one way or the other. Consequently atheists seek to affirm the rationality of their position by taking a different route. They appeal to an argument offered in the late nineteenth century by William Clifford. In a famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief," Clifford argued that "it is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Clifford offered the example of a ship-owner ship putting a ship to sea without performing the necessary safety checks; he wished the passengers well, but when the ship sank, he calmly collected the insurance money. The ship owner had no regrets, since he didn't know the ship was unsafe. Clifford's point is that the man was a scoundrel. He should have known! He had no right to declare the ship seaworthy without collecting all the evidence. Clifford's conclusion is that we should believe as true only propositions that come with sufficient proof; we should reject as false those that don't. This position can be summed up in the popular atheist slogan, "The absence of evidence is evidence of absence."

Clifford's principle seems praiseworthy for its heroic attachment to truth, but nevertheless there is something deeply wrong with it. Specifically, it confuses "what is known by a given person under the circumstances" with "what is or is not the case." Imagine a fellow living in ancient Greece in the fifth century B.C. As far as he can determine, using all the experience and evidence at his disposal, there are only three continents on the planet, no other planets in the galaxy, and only a handful of stars in the universe. What does this tell us about the actual number of continents, planets or stars in existence? Absolutely nothing. It only tells us that ancient Greeks had very limited information at their disposal.

As a second example, consider efforts on the part of contemporary scientists to find out if there is life on other planets. So far scientists have found nothing. Should we all, therefore, refuse to believe that there is life on other planets on the grounds that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Clearly this is premature. The absence of evidence may indicate only that we haven't figured out how to locate what we are looking for. "Not found" is not the same thing as "found not to exist."

These examples show the limitations of the "absence of evidence" principle, but the issue of life after death poses an even deeper problem. To see this, let me offer an analogy between life after death and having a large sum of money in a Swiss bank account. Imagine if I asked you whether or not I have such an account. You declare your firm belief that I do not. As evidence, you cite the fact that you have never seen me go the bank. Moreover, you have observed me shopping and notice that as I spend money my wallet gets thinner. You infer that at some point my wallet will be empty and I will be broke. So clearly I don't have a bank account.

Then I ask you, do you have access to the bank's internal records? You do not. Have you ever been to the bank? You have not; in fact, you have never been to Switzerland. Have you organized 24 hour surveillance of the bank in question so that if I did go there, you would be notified? Of course not. Obviously we can conclude from these facts that you have arrived at a most unreasonable conclusion. In reality you have far too little information to decide one way or another whether I have a bank account. And this is precisely the situation facing the atheist with regard to the afterlife. On the basis of the available facts, not only does the atheist not know what happens after death, he cannot possibly know. The absence of evidence is evidence of nothing.

So what do atheists have to say about all this? Basically, they say that to give up reason and evidence, even in situations which seem outside the bounds of reason and evidence, is to open the door to all kinds of craziness. Should we start believing in unicorns and centaurs on the grounds that there is no way to disprove them? The philosopher Bertrand Russell gave the example of a celestial teapot that is said to rove the solar system but is undetectable by all scientific instruments. Should we believe in such an absurdity simply because it cannot be refuted?

With some glee, Richard Dawkins invokes the example of an invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster that controls the operations of the universe. These way-out examples can't be disproved, Dawkins writes, "yet nobody thinks the hypothesis of their existence is on an even footing with the hypothesis of their non-existence." In other words, the odds in favor aren't the same as the odds against.

A little scrutiny of these examples will quickly show that the craziness here is entirely on the part of the atheists. We have combed the earth without locating a single unicorn, so we seem justified in rejecting unicorns. Centaurs are believed by scientists to be biologically impossible. In these two cases, the odds are clearly against. Celestial teapots are also very unlikely, as are Flying Spaghetti Monsters, but our derision is prejudicially solicited by the particular examples chosen. Teapots do not fly, and pasta is an unlikely ingredient to produce flying monsters.

On the other hand, if we modify the examples slightly to involve matter and energy that is undetectable by scientific instruments and yet is presumed to exist in order to account for the motions of the galaxies, we have just described "dark matter" and "dark energy," widely accepted by scientists today. Here the odds are heavily in favor, even if the phenomena in question are strange and not well understood.

I agree with Russell and Dawkins that even when propositions seem outside the bounds of verifiability, there is no cause to give up reason; I am merely arguing that we should be constantly aware of what reason does, and doesn't, tell us in a given situation. Moreover, there may be things that are outside experience that have features different from what is within our experience, and we should be open to such possibilities and not dismissive of them in advance.

Consider the possibility of aliens that exist in some galaxy far away. Is there anything we can say about them that would automatically count as absurd? For instance, can we reject out of hand the possibility that the aliens each have 10 eyes? No. Can we dismiss the suggestion that they weigh less than a speck of dust, or more than a skyscraper? No. Can we laugh out of court the idea that they don't have hearts, or that they communicate by telepathy, or that they sustain themselves by consuming metal? In each case, no.

So the bottom line is that there is nothing about the possibility of aliens that is prospectively out of bounds; we simply have no idea about what aliens, if they exist, might be like. Perhaps there is even one that looks like a Flying Sphagetti Monster! If atheists wrote about life on other planets in the way that they write about religious claims, their derision would be immediately seen for the ignorant prejudice that it is.

Atheists like to think of themselves as the party of reason, advancing views that are based only on facts and evidence. Here we see that when it comes to life after death, the atheist claim to knowledge constitutes a kind of false advertising. In reality, the atheist is in the same position of ignorance as the believer. Yet the religious believer doesn't claim to be a champion of reason and is content to hold his position based on faith. The atheist is a victim of what may be called the "Dawkins Delusion": he too holds a faith-based position while deceiving himself into thinking that his rejection of life after death is wholly based on the evidence.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Religion & Culture; Skeptics/Seekers
KEYWORDS: atheism; dawkins; dsouza; faith; faithandphilosophy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: Nosterrex

Yes.


21 posted on 02/28/2010 2:58:19 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Requiring incredible evidence is a sign of wavering faith, but Biblical faith is not one that has no evidence, but like getting marriage, salvific faith is a step based upon evidence sufficient to warrant it. Abraham did not become a convert thru Baker’s Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, useful as that can be, and the miraculous changes which result when a soul becomes born again and continues in the faith testify to a cause which upon close examination overall can defy known natural explanations. Rational souls do not write thousands of hymns about Jesus because they are imagining things, and radical changes in heart that where sought in vain, but resulted when a soul simply prayed a contrite prayer to Jesus, ought to make an unbeliever at least be open to the possibility of God.

As for NDE’s, there is much research by secularists that make it very hard to deny life after death, at the least. I think these links still work.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=near+death+experiences+habermas&sitesearch=video.google.com (Research NDE)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_I9-XxBAEsQ (BBC - The day I died)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6547221602055506348&q=mickey+robinson&total=57&start=0&num=50&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 ( mickey robinson — air crash to Christ)


22 posted on 02/28/2010 3:08:01 PM PST by daniel1212 ("Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thanks for the links, but I do not put much trust in NDE testimonials because the NDE descriptions from other faiths testifying its own beliefs, are available, too. Same with the hymns and poetry.

Like I said earlier, seeking evidence is an indication of wavering faith.


23 posted on 02/28/2010 3:21:53 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“Tell a devout Christian that his wife is cheating on him or that frozen yogurt can make a man invisible, and he is likely to require as much evidence as anyone else, and to be persuaded only to the extent that you give it. Tell him that the book he keeps by his bed was written by an invisible deity who will punish him with fire for eternity if he fails to accept its every incredible claim about the universe, and he seems to require no evidence whatsoever.”

There is much truth to this statement. The thought of being tormented for eternity is a powerful motivator to blind obedience. In reasonable moments one thinks of hell sa remnant of tales told in ancient times by primitive people who feared everthing they did not understand. Oh yes! The boogey man “boogey man” will get you if you don’t say your prayers or do your chores. The idea of hell is at once preposterous, frightening and antithetic to justice tempered with merch.

But then the atheist idea of death being nothingness is very scary for some. But why? Actually you can’t experience “nothing” if you are not alive. Nothing = non-existence. Before you were conceived did you feel anything? Fear, joy, boredom? No there was no “you” to have feelings. You did not exist. You were oblivious. The atheists asserts that death is the same oblivion. Not so bad when you think about it.

Then there is heaven. Something to be really excited about. But I wonder if an ETERNITY of anything good or bad might be torture. I mean eternity is a long time, especially toward the end. An eternity of bliss and love, sorry it just does not do it for some people. I would rather have ups and downs and interesting things to do and not just sit around all day filled with love and joy. It sounds boring.


24 posted on 02/28/2010 3:39:39 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

If there is nothing after this life, then why should one do what is not in one’s own best interest? There is no good or evil because those concepts are just inventions by men used to manipulate the people to act in a certain way.

The worst atheists, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc., really believed it and thus were not personally constrained by morals and ethics.


25 posted on 02/28/2010 3:42:06 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Truth - Reality through the eyes of God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

It is true that people from other faiths have NEDs, but that still testifies to the supernatural, and even witchcraft does that. Then they issue becomes which one is the right one. Moses 1st 3 miracles were duplicated by the devil (magicians), but he outdid them.

As for seeking evidence being an indication of wavering faith, that is true except sometimes when prayerfully seeking direction, but faith that has no evidence has no reality. The born again church did not grow to be what is (in the positive sense) because of good business strategy, or centralized CC, etc., or provides religious ritual, but most essentially because life giving truth and faith results in evidence.

I think the (sober) “Venture in faith” documentary (download) and many written testimonies are modern examples of what I am talking about, without asserting perfection. But every generation much have living Biblical faith, and share and maintain it.

And despite my faults and failures of faith, i can well testify that God keeps his promises as we trust and obey, and is also faithful to keep His promise to let you know when you are straying from that path.


26 posted on 02/28/2010 3:45:44 PM PST by daniel1212 ("Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AU72

He was born, he lived, he died, and now he’s compost.

Good luck with that. Atheists that think this life turns to nothingness must ask themselves why they believe in love, in right and wrong, in justice, in fairness, because if there’s no real meaning to life and we’re all a cosmic accident, none of that means anything because all of it just boils down to your opinion and everything is just relative and therefore meaningless in the end.

Most of us believe this life isn’t meaningless and that the things that count are not relative or subjective.


27 posted on 02/28/2010 3:49:06 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I'd like to tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Forgot the hymns. While I do not know of any comparative research, I really think that the abundance of hymns by evangelicals, while being a minority, are unmatched in amount (per capita) and kind of content. Blind Fanny Crosby wrote 8,000, and others wrote thousands, testifying of what Christ did in their soul and the realities of the Christian faith.


28 posted on 02/28/2010 3:52:42 PM PST by daniel1212 ("Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles
I mean eternity is a long time, especially toward the end.

You make an extremely astute statement: Eternity is forever. As mortals with a beginning and an end, we cannot comprehend that. So, once again, we turn to scripture for a better understanding.

But as it is written: "What eye has not seen, and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart, what God has prepared for those who love him,"
1 Corinthians 2:9

So, what do we know? We know from those who have had a near death experience that they did not want to come back.

29 posted on 02/28/2010 3:55:25 PM PST by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

There can be no moral absolutes for atheists, no absolute measure of or authority for “good” and “evil”. As you have pointed out morality and ethics are determined by consensus.


30 posted on 02/28/2010 4:01:07 PM PST by windsorknot (o o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles

You said, “But then the atheist idea of death being nothingness is very scary for some. But why? Actually you can’t experience “nothing” if you are not alive. Nothing = non-existence. Before you were conceived did you feel anything? Fear, joy, boredom? No there was no “you” to have feelings. You did not exist. You were oblivious. The atheists asserts that death is the same oblivion. Not so bad when you think about it.”


The “peace” of nothingness. A billion years and a nanosecond, should feel the same, according to that.


31 posted on 02/28/2010 4:01:40 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thanks!


32 posted on 02/28/2010 4:02:05 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule_(ethics)


33 posted on 02/28/2010 4:03:55 PM PST by James C. Bennett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Philosophically, every person should first decide if they are transcendental beings or not.

Everything follows after that.

34 posted on 02/28/2010 4:07:54 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Secret Agent Man

Not only. But despite the symphony of angry-at-God men like Dawkins, Harris and Hitches who espouse a superior basis for morality than those dangerous Christians who are may blow up the world, what assurance can relying on the “golden compass” of man provide when it so easily points south (or left)? That is the same moral reasoning the atheists as Mao and Pol Pot used in doing what seemed pragmatically reasonable to them, and the political religion the atheism fosters. Many atheists favor removing children from the homes of evangelicals, even likening them to drug users.

Meanwhile the atrocities (Inquisitions, etc.) they blame Christianity for were contrary to the Bible, and its influence has helped build strong societies, which they benefit from.


35 posted on 02/28/2010 4:13:35 PM PST by daniel1212 ("Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hound of the Baskervilles

This is an ignorance comparison, and supposes that Christian faith rests on just words. It does rest on the Bible, but the reason the Bible became the Bible was ultimately believing its words and its gospel result in life. I was raised devoutly religious (RC) but had no interest in what the Bible said or meant until after i became born again, and then my hunger to know what it meant became nigh insatiable, and this was not because i was in some cult of strong church, much less in the “Bible belt”, but it was really the Lord and me - a truck driver with a radio tuned to the Christian station.


36 posted on 02/28/2010 4:22:57 PM PST by daniel1212 ("Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nosterrex

Read the Gospel story of Lazarus the beggar (LK 16,19-31) when Abraham addresses the rich man who is in torment, pleading to return to life to warn his family members about life after death. Abraham tells the rich man that even if his wish to return is granted, the living will not believe him. Maybe that is why nobody returns.


37 posted on 02/28/2010 5:00:15 PM PST by bronx2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: plinyelder

“What if WE are right?”

“If” connotes supposition or uncertain possibility. You have doubt.


38 posted on 02/28/2010 5:06:47 PM PST by verity (Obama Lies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

“So, what do we know? We know from those who have had a near death experience that they did not want to come back. “

Yes interesting but how “near” was death? And are you sure no one wanted to come back? No one?

So you say the bible says heaven is just wonderful and we in our finite human capacity can’t begin to imagine it. But trust what the bible says of heaven is true. Sorry it just does not move me. If the bible says heaven is great, okay fine, but I am in no way in a hurry to get there and nothing said by the bible about heaven has ever changed that.


39 posted on 02/28/2010 5:12:42 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

This is an ignorance comparison, and supposes that Christian faith rests on just words. It does rest on the Bible, but the reason the Bible became the Bible was ultimately believing its words and its gospel result in life. I was raised devoutly religious (RC) but had no interest in what the Bible said or meant until after i became born again, and then my hunger to know what it meant became nigh insatiable, and this was not because i was in some cult of strong church, much less in the “Bible belt”, but it was really the Lord and me - a truck driver with a radio tuned to the Christian station.”

Well I can tell you without hesitation that I am not ignorant of the bible. I was raised RC too and I learned plenty about the bible. Now this born again experience you are talking about I am somewhat skeptical of. Here’s why. It’s emotions. You feel all emotional inside and you answer the altar call. Or you feel repentance or whatever strong emotion with regard to Jesus.

I don’t trust emotions. They come and go and they are sometimes phony. So many people say, I was a Catholic but then I was born again and I “felt” such peace and now I have a personal relationship with Jesus. Let me say this there is nothing in the NT that says you have to “feel” certain emotions to become Christian. There is nothing that says you have to have a personal relationship with Jesus. This is not to say that Catholics are not emotional in the practice of their faith. Very many are. But you don’t have to be. A very dry faith is perfectly acceptable and sometimes it is even better because you are not needing emotional consolation all the time.

I don’t trust emotions. I trust logic and reason and what makes sense.


40 posted on 02/28/2010 5:27:54 PM PST by Hound of the Baskervilles ("Nonsense in the intellect draws evil after it." C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson