Karen Armstrong: liar or idiot?

July 4, 2010 at 8:28 pm (Christianity, Guardian, Jim D, religion, science, secularism, truth)

The easy ride that ex-nun and ecumenical apologist for religion, Karen Armstrong, receives in the “liberal”/”left” press (New Statesman, Graun, etc), never ceases to amaze me. Below is an exception: John Crace’s concise demolition of her book “The Case For God,” in The Graun:

May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart make Dawkins and Hitchens burn in Hell, O Lord my Rock and my Redeemer. Amen.

blankMuch of what we say about God these days is facile. The concept of God is meant to be hard. Too often we get lost in what Greeks called logos (reason) rather than interpreting him through mythoi – those things we know to be eternally true but can’t prove. Like Santa Claus. Religion is not about belief or faith; it is a skill. Self-deceit does not always come easily, so we have to work at it.

Our ancestors, who were obviously right, would have been surprised by the crude empiricism that reduces faith to fundamentalism or atheism. I have no intention of rubbishing anyone’s beliefs, so help me God, but Dawkins’s critique of God is unbelievably shallow. God is transcendent, clever clogs. So we obviously can’t understand him. Duh!

I’m going to spend the next 250 pages on a quick trawl of comparative religion from the pre-modern to the present day. It won’t help make the case for God, but it will make me look clever and keep the publishers happy, so let’s hope no one notices!

The desire to explain the unknowable has always been with us and the most cursory glance at the cave paintings at Lascaux makes it clear these early Frenchies didn’t intend us to take their drawings literally. Their representations of God are symbolic; their religion a therapy, a sublimation of the self. Something that fat bastard Hitchens should think about.

Much the same is true of the Bible. Astonishingly, the Eden story is not a historical account, nor is everything else in the Bible true. The Deuteronomists were quick to shift the goalposts of the meaning of the Divine when problems of interpretation and meaning were revealed. So should we be. Rationalism is not antagonistic to religion. Baby Jesus didn’t want us to believe in his divinity. That is a misrepresentation of the Greek pistis. He wanted everyone to give God their best shot and have a singalong Kumbaya.

We’ll pass over Augustine and Original Sin, because that was a bit of a Christian own goal, and move on to Thomas Aquinas, in whom we can see that God’s best hope is apophatic silence. We can’t say God either exists or doesn’t exist, because he transcends existence. This not knowing is proof of his existence. QED. A leap of faith is in fact a leap of rationality. Obviously.

Skipping through the Kabbalah, introduced by the Madonna of Lourdes and Mercy (1459 – ), through Erasmus and Copernicus, we come to the Age of Reason. It was unfortunate that the church rejected Galileo, but that was more of a post-Tridentine Catholic spat than a serious error and it didn’t help that a dim French theologian, Mersenne, conflated the complexities of science with intelligent design, but we’ll skip over that.

Things came right with Darwin. Many assume he was an atheist; in reality he was an agnostic who, despite being a lot cleverer than Dawkins, could not refute the possibility of a God. Therefore God must exist, or we drift into the terrible nihilism of Sartre where we realise everything is pointless. Especially this book.

The modern drift to atheism has been balanced by an equally lamentable rise in fundamentalism. Both beliefs are compromised and misconceived. The only logical position is apophatic relativism, as stated in the Jeff Beck (1887- ) lyric, “You’re everywhere and nowhere, Baby. That’s where you’re at.”

I haven’t had time to deal with the tricky issues of the after-life that some who believe in God seem to think are fairly important.

But silence is often the best policy – geddit, Hitchens? And the lesson of my historical overview is that the only tenable religious belief is one where you have the humility to constantly change your mind in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

God is the desire beyond this desire, who exists because I say so, and the negation of whose existence confirms his transcendence. Or something like that.

And if you believe this, you’ll believe anything.

(back to me: JD)…

Armstrong’s defence of religion is based upon a rejection of rationality and an objection to the idea that people should even have to defend the ideas that they hold. Her irrationality -quite rightly – pisses off serious religious folk, who are capable of recognising a cop-out and an insult to the intelligence when they see it.

Anyway, I have long wondered whether Karen Armstrong is simply a bit thick, or is a deliberate obfuscator (ie: liar).  Her review of  “Absence of Mind: The Dispelling of Inwardness from the Modern Myth of the Self” (phew!) by Marilynne Robinson, in yesterday’s Graun inclines me to the view that she is simply a liar and a charlatan. I mean, no-one can be this stupid, can thay?

In her predicatably enthusiastic review of Robinson’s attack upon reason, thought, the need for evidence before reaching conclusions, etc, Armstrong launches into a tired old attack on Darwinians (not, you notice Darwinianism itself – she’s not that stupid):

‘”Oh, to have been a fly on the wall!” Robinson comments wryly, when our “proto-verbal ancestors found mates through eloquent proto-speech”. In the same way, art may appear to be “an exploration of experience, of the possibilities of communication, and of the extraordinary collaboration of eye and hand,” but according to some neo-Darwinians, it too is simply a means of attracting sexual partners. “Leonardo and Rembrandt may have thought they were competent inquirers in their own right, but we moderns know better.”

‘This disdainful “hermeneutics of condescension” cannot function outside of a narrow definition of relative data. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the positivist critique of religion. Daniel Dennett, for example, defines religion as “social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought”. He deliberately avoids the contemplative side of faith explored by William James, as if, Robinson says, “religion were only what could be observed using the methods of anthropology or of sociology, without reference to the deeply pensive solitudes that bring individuals into congregations”. Bypassing Donne, Bach, the Sufi poets and Socrates, Dennett, Dawkins and others are free to reduce the multifarious religious experience of humanity “to a matter of bones and feathers and wishful thinking, a matter of rituals and social bonding and false etiologies and the fear of death”.’

Compare that description of Daniel Dennett’s alleged failure to comprehend “the deeply pensive solitudes that bring individuals into congregations“, with what Dennett himself writes about humanity, sympathy and emotion following a potentially fatal medical emergency:

‘Yes, I did have an epiphany. I saw with greater clarity than ever before in my life that when I say “Thank goodness!” this is not merely a euphemism for “Thank God!” (We atheists don’t believe that there is any God to thank.) I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence  is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now.

‘To whom, then, do I owe a debt of gratitude? To the cardiologist who has kept me alive and ticking for years, and who swiftly and confidently rejected the original diagnosis of nothing worse than pneumonia. To the surgeons, neurologists, anesthesiologists, and the perfusionist, who kept my systems going for many hours under daunting circumstances. To the dozen or so physician assistants, and to nurses and physical therapists and x-ray technicians and a small army of phlebotomists so deft that you hardly know they are drawing your blood, and the people who brought the meals, kept my room clean, did the mountains of laundry generated by such a messy case, wheel-chaired me to x-ray, and so forth. These people came from Uganda, Kenya, Liberia, Haiti, the Philippines, Croatia, Russia, China, Korea,  India—and the United States, of course—and I have never seen more impressive mutual respect, as they helped each other out and checked each other’s work. But for all their teamwork, this local gang could not have done their jobs without the huge background of contributions from others. I remember with gratitude my late friend and Tufts colleague, physicist Allan Cormack, who shared the Nobel Prize for his invention of the c-t scanner. Allan—you have posthumously saved yet another life, but who’s counting? The world is better for the work you did. Thank goodness. Then there is the whole system of medicine, both the science and the technology, without which the best-intentioned efforts of individuals would be roughly useless. So I am grateful to the editorial boards and referees, past and present, of Science, Nature, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, and all the other institutions of science and medicine that keep churning  out improvements, detecting and correcting flaws.’

Dennett’s plain-spoken humanity, decency and honesty – while never for a moment reneging upon his rational beliefs – puts Karen Armstrong’s pretentious obfuscation, meaningless waffle and essential  denial  of humanity  into the dark, foetid backwater of dishonour and shame in which it belongs.

40 Comments

  1. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said,

    Is it possible to be both?

    • chazwyman said,

      I think in this case that is true.

      Her main problem is that assertion that religion was never meant to be explicable in terms of logos, but was a means to understand one emotional and lived experience though parable; mythos. In this she implies that religion was never supposed to be taken literally, and goes on to traduce Dawkins for his caricature god ‘supernatural, creator of the universe etc, as if anyone on earth ever literally believed in this version of god!! Well dear Karen, not all raving fundamentalists have your esoteric understanding and in fact do believe in the literal meaning of an existent god that cares about who we sleep with, what we ware and how we live our lives! Additionally they are prepared to impose those moral injunctions universally. And that is the problem that the New Atheists are explaining and the situation that they are seeking to resist.
      So yes Karen is self deluded in accepting that belief in things that are not the case is harmless. Delusion is the place where lying and stupidity meet, and for all her academic credentials she is deluded.

      • Alistair Cunningham said,

        I can only conclude that unfortunately you’ve either not read or understood her work. She is quite clear that ‘raving fundamentalists’ don’t understand the ‘esoteric God’ and DO believe we should read ‘scripture’ literally. She is as critical of them as she is of people like you who appear to not want to listen, maybe because you get some kind of kick out of kicking, which I have to admit I don’t understand either.

      • Mr L M Flack said,

        Once upon a time people like you were only allowed crayons for obvious reasons. Remember in the glasshouse of indecision only the leper can find happiness

  2. Doug said,

    The Guardian always get her to review books like Robinsons or anything relating to religion. Once I thought it was because her crap would provoke a reaction. Now i think it’s because they see her as some sort of expert. This confirms my belief that most middle class liberals are actually quite thick.

  3. Will said,

    “most middle class liberals are actually quite thick.”

    Correction — all of them.

    • charleton wyman said,

      Are the articulateness of your paltry comment is supposedly an attempt to make other people accept the veracity of your unfounded claim?

      Not very convincing!

    • Sensorite said,

      Middle-class liberals are thick? Have you ever listened to yourself?

      • Richard Webb said,

        What has class, liberal, thickness to do with anything.
        This is the new “Pseuds Corner”

      • Sensorite said,

        That’s why there’s a question mark. That was a response to a previous person who posted here that liberal, middle-class people are thick, which is necessarily he level of ‘Socratic discourse’ we should be aiming for :)

        Btw I agree with the general thrust of the postings you have up here….

      • Richard Webb said,

        It is nice to find that occasionally when swimming against the tide I have company.

      • Sensorite said,

        Indeed, but I guess the title of this article suggests one is not going to be ‘among friends’. The title of this article says it all – ‘Karen Armstrong – liar or idiot?’ – not giving any other options. It’s nice to think that there might be, if not a ‘silent majority’ hopefully a sizeable number of people who are able to recognise the poverty of the tunnel-visioned ‘arguments’ of the Harris and Dawkinsites vs those who would have us believe that the human race is only 6000 years old!

  4. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill said,

    Sweeping generalisations ahoy here about much maligned middle class liberals, easy pickings for the weak of mind perhaps…

  5. Innocent Abroad said,

    Well I think Karen Armstrong herself would allow for the possibility that she might be a bit thick, and which of us should not?

    Dennett’s definition of religion would exclude Buddhism and Taoism, and any definition that would include them would probably give offence to the likes of the Chief Rabbi. I couldn’t even tell you if mysticism is or is not necessarily religious. Nor would I care to offer a form of words that would infallibly sort religion from superstition.

    Clearly there is room – to give just one example – for popular yet scholarly accounts of why, in the Mediterranean world, the pantheons of ancient Greece and Rome gave way firstly to Mithraic mystery religion and then to Christianity and Karen Armstrong fills this room effectively.

    You may want to be able to give a completely materialistic account of human behaviour so that a complete list of inputs predicts the output – in other word, you may take the view that “free will” is a category mistake relating to no more than gaps in the information table. If so, any half-assed theologian will recognise straight away that you wish to set yourself up as God.

  6. Shuggy said,

    Karen Armstrong is certainly a bit thick – but no-one who has a passing acquaintance with the Bible or early church history could possibly agree with her bullshit about ‘logos’ and ‘mythoi’ or any of the other pseudo-intellectual obfuscating tosh she comes out with. Given that Armstrong spent all these years in nun-school or wherever, one assumes that she does indeed have a working knowledge of the Bible and early church history. On this basis j’accuse Karen Armstrong of being a liar. Lying to herself, no doubt. If you’ve spent all these years devoting yourself to a cause that you later discover to have been built on epistemological shifting sands, I suppose it must be difficult. But I don’t see why the Guardian and her publishers feel the need to indulge her by effectively paying for her therapy and inflicting it on the rest of us. Maybe because they themselves know slightly less than fuck all about religion and are just caught up in the current vogue for being understanding towards those who claim cognitive infallibility on the basis of a book that they haven’t read all the way through and threaten to kill those who disagree.

  7. Egg on your face said,

    “Clearly there is room – to give just one example – for popular yet scholarly accounts of why, in the Mediterranean world, the pantheons of ancient Greece and Rome gave way firstly to Mithraic mystery religion and then to Christianity and Karen Armstrong fills this room effectively. ”

    A bit over the head of Denham, eh? His speciality is more on the lines of Harry Hill.

    “Fight fight fight”! (hic!)

  8. Steve said,

    A few negative observations on Dennett, I will leave aside the positives as these are self evident:

    He seems to me an abstract thinker, i.e. it is ok to use abstractions to model reality but he seems to be of the ilk that remains in the abstract and never leaves its comforting realm. So his very view of rational is an abstract view.

    For example, his two stage model of decision making focuses on the individual but plays down the role of the collective. It is decision making without a social context. I think this is in some way deliberate as he seems to be an elitist, someone who does not believe in the self evident fact that better decisions are made when more people are involved in making them.

  9. shug said,

    What you reckon,outsell the bible.Just a few dollars, to pay my tax rent food you know.Whoe!s passing the hat.

    I call myself a socialist,hard line, makes you question, heaps.Old and bald now,god who is he,a world inside a book,a thought ,a answer to our always expanding life,who made this,someone had too,who not in this book.

  10. Jim Denham said,

    Innocent Abroad: when you say,

    “You may want to be able to give a completely materialistic account of human behaviour so that a complete list of inputs predicts the output – in other word, you may take the view that “free will” is a category mistake relating to no more than gaps in the information table. If so, any half-assed theologian will recognise straight away that you wish to set yourself up as God.”…
    …you are talking/writing nonsense that is largely disproved by the Dennett quote I used in the main article, as well as innumerable articles by Dawkins and Hitchens about the “beauty” of nature, science and human intercourse…without the need for fairy tales and/or superstition.

    None of this necessarily denies the role of “free will”: it is religious people who must explain how “god” fits into that concept – and if s/he does, why you bother with prayer?

    I think the above also answers that twat egg-brains.

  11. Jim Denham said,

    Crap as Armstrong is, at least she’s a believer. There’s something especially odious about a self-proclaimed “non-believer” defending religion:
    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/93114
    But a good reply, here:
    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/93307

  12. Rosie said,

    http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/mohler/11608516/

    Here’s a view from a clear-headed Christian and theologian that Karen Armstrong is in fact an atheist who doesn’t want to be branded as something as crude and vulgar as that, so hides her atheism with clouds of vapour.

    “Demonstrating the point that this exchange is really not a meaningful debate, Karen Armstrong begins her essay with this amazing statement: “Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course — at least in one important respect. Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived. It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive.”

    Furthermore, she asserts that human beings “were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making.”

    And yet, Armstrong insists that Darwin really did God a favor by forcing us to give up our “primitive” belief in his actual existence — thus freeing us to affirm merely a “God beyond God” who exists only as a concept.

    Along the way, Armstrong offers a superficial and theologically reckless argument that comes down to this: Until the modern age, believers in God were not really believers in a God who was believed to exist. Then along came Sir Isaac Newton and the “modern” belief that God must exist in order to be God. When Darwin came along to show “that there could be no proof for God’s existence,” he was doing God a favor — allowing his survival as a mere symbol.

    She makes statements that amount to elegant nonsense. Consider this: “In the ancient world, a cosmology was not regarded as factual but was primarily therapeutic; it was recited when people needed an infusion of that mysterious power that had — somehow — brought something out of primal nothingness: at a sickbed, a coronation or during a political crisis.” So she would have us to believe that, in centuries past, cosmology was merely therapy. She simply makes the assertion and moves on. Will anyone believe this nonsense?

    Armstrong calls for the emergence of “a more authentic notion of God.” Her preferred concept of God would be about aesthetics, not theology. “Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form,” she intones.

    Interestingly, it is Dawkins, presented as the unbeliever in this exchange, who understands God better than Armstrong. In fact, Richard Dawkins the atheist rightly insists that Karen Armstrong is actually an atheist as well. “Darwin’s Rotweiller” sees through Armstrong’s embrace of a “God beyond God.”

    He writes: “Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists. Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism.”

    Clearly, this “certain class of sophisticated modern theologian” refers to those theologians who embrace theological non-realism. Dawkins clearly lumps Karen Armstrong in the same category of deluded theologians.

    “Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek,” Dawkins warns. “The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again.”

    We should at least give Dawkins credit here for knowing what he rejects. Here we meet an atheist who understands the difference between belief and unbelief. As for those, like Armstrong, who try to tell believers that it does not matter if God exists — Dawkins informs them that believers in God will brand them as atheists. “They’ll be right,” Dawkins concludes.

    So the exchange in The Wall Street Journal turns out to be a meeting of two atheist minds. The difference, of course, is that one knows he is an atheist when the other presumably claims she is not. Dawkins knows a fellow atheist when he sees one. ”

    I don’t think any atheist took down Armstrong more concisely and clearly than this devout Christian.

  13. David Hooper said,

    I am not particularly an Armstrong fan but most of the supposed critiques above seem to me to be motivated by a foul minded bile. Their claim to rationality is laughable.
    Is the anger rational or an emotive response. Dawkins may be a decent scientist but his book is shallow nonsense. At least Stephen Hawking presents a strong argument that puts Dawkins to shame. But that there are an infinite number of universes is as hard for me to grasp as the concept of God. Maybe that is because God is not a concept!

  14. chazwyman said,

    Her main problem is that assertion that religion was never meant to be explicable in terms of logos, but was a means to understand one emotional and lived experience though parable; mythos. In this she implies that religion was never supposed to be taken literally, and goes on to traduce Dawkins for his caricature god ‘supernatural, creator of the universe etc, as if anyone on earth ever literally believed in this version of god!! Well dear Karen, not all raving fundamentalists have your esoteric understanding and in fact do believe in the literal meaning of an existent god that cares about who we sleep with, what we ware and how we live our lives! Additionally they are prepared to impose those moral injunctions universally. And that is the problem that the New Atheists are explaining and the situation that they are seeking to resist.
    So yes Karen is self deluded in accepting that belief in things that are not the case is harmless. Delusion is the place where lying and stupidity meet, and for all her academic credentials she is deluded.

    • David Hooper said,

      I am trying to decide whether it is better to be a wooly minded soft headed liberal or an inflexible stunted intellectual fascist. To comment on Karen Armstrong you appear to have to be one or the other.
      Try understanding the relationship between scientific theories about the origins and the limits of the universe on the one hand and those about string theory and the fundamental constituents of matter then maybe you will realise the feeble paucity of your and most other contributions to this debate.

      • charleton wyman said,

        Try opening a book sometimes!

        If you open Armstrong’s one you will know what sort of superior being you are too.

  15. Lightning Brother said,

    Sorry, you tipped me out of the carriage in your second paragraph…

    • charleton wyman said,

      Sorry that your intellect is not up to it.

      Do you think you are capable of actually reading the book?

      It would seem not, if you fail to hold your attention for more than i paragraph.
      Perhaps you would be better off sticking to Face-book, or Yahoo Answers?

      • David Hooper said,

        My goodness CW – the way you write YOU must be the got for which we are all searching. Certainly you present yourself as omniscient, so maybe you are also omnipotent.

  16. Lightning Brother said,

    …and as for the subsequent ‘commentators’ intellectual onanism…oh dear…

  17. poohbear said,

    Lots of aggression here – argument, opinion and emotion intertwined.

    That’s just how it is for most of us; there is often a very personal element in the formation and expression of such ideas.

    Karen Armstrong has spoken openly about her traumatic experiences as a nun. The benefits of Socratic debate are greater if we listen carefully and kindly for the origins as well as to the content of each other’s fumbling attempts at saying the truth.

  18. Clarence said,

    I couldn’t help but notice some people said that Armstrong didn’t know anything about religion. Yeah her argument A Case for God is a bit shit, but her other books, particularly A History of God, show that she knows a fair bit about religion.

    • chazwyman said,

      Her thesis in this book is bankrupt for a range of reasons of all which seem to relate to a tendency to take a intellectual view of religion, ignoring the abuse of generations of ordinary people and pretending the often quiet even secret musing of theologians in any way accurately represented true religion.
      The result is that she has cherry picked particular points which render such things as astronomy and evolutionary theory of no importance when assessing the meaning of Christianity – ideas that ought to have destroyed the intellectual authority of the churches which have, instead, squirmed and evolved to avoid the implication that they never had the hot-line to god that they claimed and that their authority rested on.

  19. John Abel said,

    I sometimes lose all faith in humanity.!!
    How can people describe others as ‘idiots’ and their writings as ‘crap’!1

    I hate to be cruel, but we seem to have a fair number of people who still regard the Bible to be literally Gods word.. and then use that ignorance to attack others for their views
    It’s time for some people who describe themselves as Christians, to come out of the nursery!

    • Richard Webb said,

      Explain to me exactly what you mean by “God’s Word” that you dismiss so readily. You can’t even explain that which it is that you deride. I guess you are the idiot and/or imbecile!

      • John Abel said,

        Richard
        You sound like a true Christian to me!!!
        As a matter of interest do you regard the Bible as literally God’s word?
        Every word correct?
        Perhaps you can explain to me which VERSION of the Bible is God’s word!

      • Richard Webb said,

        No, I have never described myself as a true Christian. I think the Bible is an historical document describing the development of tribes/families living in the Middle East 2000-3000!years ago.
        I just dislike ignorant sneering comments from arrogant but second rate intellectuals such as yourself.
        You failed to answer my original question, because you are unable to.
        At best you could turn to logical positivism and claim it is all jumbo- jumbo including your own assertions!

      • John Abel said,

        Always nice to talk to a humble man!
        (You missed my sarcasm!)
        Have a nice New Year.!!
        G’day!

  20. Loveday said,

    I read A Case for God over Christmas staying in the house of a Catholic friend and was amazed at the dishonesty obvious even to a general reader like myself. The word ‘gnosis’ screamed off nearly every page because it was so entirely absent except for one mention when writing of St Augustine. Armstrong uses the word ‘mythos’ instead but her avoidence of the words gnosis or gnostic is to my mind quite cunning. The codices which came to light over fifty years ago at Nag Hammadi have been well documented and commented upon. Reading Armstrong is like reading an ostrich with its head in the sand.

  21. chazwyman said,

    Richard Webb, you are letting yourself down, and doing yourself no favours. None of the criticisms are remotely related to Logical positivism.

    This book is a poor attempt to reinvent god and perpetuate a defunct belief system whose day is well over done. There can be no serious support for it; chocked full of conceptual errors, and invented intellectual special case pleading. It make K Armstrong look like a sad and confused person clutching at straws.

    • Richard Webb said,

      How can something or someone who did not exist be reinvented? I think you are conceptually confused. Try the later Wittgenstein for enlightenment.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: