The Shotgun Blog
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Apparently Andrew Sullivan has been using the term "Christianism".
"Hey, if fundamentalist Muslims are Islamists, why aren't fundamentalist Christians Christianists?", related a friend to me. My answer was that Islamists themselves use the term -- that's why use it. Nobody calls themselves a "Christianist", and if we start labelling them in that way, it seems to promote a moral equivalance between fundamentalists of two very different religions.
He reponded, 'But what if they called themselves by positive names? Would you support using those terms?" Admitedly, this silenced me; but though my answer isn't a clear "yes", it's worth noting that in the current war, we do that already. Jihadist means "holy warrior", for instance, implying the Islamist cause is a just one. If mainstream media were even semi-competent in understanding the role that they play in the war, they would have learned the arabic term for "unholy warrior" (ie a Muslim fighting for an ignoble cause) a long time ago. Otherwise, as Jim Guirard pointed out to James Fallows in September's The Atlantic, we're actually validating Bin Laden's worldview on daily basis. Guirard says we should use the following terms: hirabah (“unholy war”) instead of jihad; irhabists (“terrorists”) instead of jihadists; mufsidoon (“evildoers”) instead of mujahideen. Unfortunately, it's hard to see how we could start using such terms almost six years after 9/11, but then again, if editors of large papers (and TV moguls) encouraged using them, how many journalists would oppose it?
Back to "Christianism": the "ism" denotes that the religion is being used not just for spiritual/religious reasons, but for political ones as well. But Islamist means not only someone who wants the laws of Shari'a governing the state, but also someone who is at odds with any other political system, who can't be compromised with, and who is willing to use violence to achieve that end. What would "Christianism" be? To my mind, there is really no equivalent here. Fundamentalist Christians certainly derive many political positions from a kind of church "groupthink" (ie on abortion, stem-cell research, etc.), but there is no all-dominating Shari'a-like system they seek to impose. Moreover, "crusade" is hardly equivalent to "jihad", and when the Christian-right can't get their way, the common threat is that "we won't vote for you based on such-and-such positions", which strikes me as a little different than assassinating political opponents...
Distinguising between Islam and Islamist is often easy to distinguish, though admittedly it becomes difficult now with labels like "moderate Islamism", whose proponents seek to replace Euro-American constitutions with the Qu'ran through gradual, "peaceful" means. Obviously, at all religions encourage certain values, and believers in those traditions are going to seek political resolutions in line with their tradition. What makes Islamism different is not that believers are using their religion for political purposes -- it's the extent to which they use it, to establish an all-governing system.
Until evangelicals advocate the overthrow of democracy, the second-class status on all non-Christians, and encourage violence to establist their favourite preacher as the first Emperor of America (if that's the equivalent to the Caliphate), Christianism remains a useless term.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Christianism?:
"Christianism remains a useless term"
. . . just as Sullivan himself remains a useless scribe.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-13 2:27:49 PM
Hmm... I might be losing my own argument.
Two days ago, Sullivan had a heading called Christianism Watch, with this quote under it (pasted below). I have to admit, it's hard to argue that the term is, in any way, inappropriate here.
"This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell... There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!" - Bill Keller, host of the Florida-based Live Prayer TV program as well as LivePrayer.com.
Posted by: Patrick McGee | 2007-05-13 2:51:05 PM
"proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago"
Hmmmm. Would he say the same about Muhammed who too was a murdering polygamist pedophile? Of course not, for fear of being beheaded the next day.
I guess he's not afraid of the descendants of a "murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith" doing the same. That pretty much tells you how Mormons have evolved, whereas Muslims still live in the 7th century.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-13 3:17:10 PM
I've pointed this out before, but you can find an extreme Christian in any monastery or convent.
Fundamentalist Christians, especially of the Southern Baptist variety, have been singled out by the Marxists for their particualr brand of anti-religious scorn.
Part of that, of course, is the hate-Bush mantra. It all kinda fits in.
In church today, one phrase particularly struck me.
“Envy, hatred and strife" which was given as an example of the main things which divide the human race.
Envy, of course, is the basis on which class warfare is defined.
Hatred is the means by which enough anger can be formented against others.
Strife, according to my dictionary, 1) conflict or struggle.
2) emnity or rivalry, especially of a bitter kind.
Seems to me these warnings, which were first written into liturgies thousands of years ago, are still appropriate today.
It certainly is an apt description of Marxist tactics and would accurately describe the types of trolls who occasionally pop up here.
Just keep watching for them.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-13 3:29:57 PM
This topic is just more on the discussion of invisible deities whose followers hate one another for all the reasons that folks in different tribes hate one another.
That human trait is why there will NEVER be peace on Earth.
The linger belief in an after life and what awaits is what keeps these deities on our minds and that is the only place they actually exist.
All other deities have been explained away by science. You know the gods of lightening, thunder, crops, the sea, the wind, fire, mischief, whatever.
Since no one has ever come back from the dead to explain it ... it remains the mystery upon which religious belief rests ... that we are so fabulous that we cannot simply go back to where ever we were before we were born. Rather, we must spend all eternity enjoying ourselves in heaven.
I doubt that even the most avid golfer could handle more than a few centuries of that frustration. The what? A few millenia in the clubhouse smoking cigars and sipping home made wine?
There won't be any sluts to pick up, they will all be in hell. And any virgins who might be into it will already be busy calming down Muslim yutes in their heaven.
What a fairy tale we live on this planet.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-13 5:44:17 PM
"Since no one has ever come back from the dead"
Ask Lazarus & Rabbi Zeira!
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-13 6:14:50 PM
You have evidence of these corpses coming back from rigor mortise or was that something that no one alive today can prove but swear on a bible that it did indeed happen?
Don't take this personally obc ... you and I are in agreement on most things.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-13 6:37:24 PM
Yanni, whatever you do not believe, spiritual beings do make war for your soul. One side for life, the other side for death.
You speak of "invisible deities whose followers hate one another", and state that as being the reason why we will never have peace on Earth. You are correct in that statement, because there will not be peace until the return of Jesus. He will be revealed visibly in all His glory, and every creature on the Earth will bow down and acknowledge Him as God. Until that time, "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars...Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains."-Matthew 24:6-8
Jesus was the visible, physical incarnation of God on Earth. Just because you were not there to see Him in the flesh, doesn't mean He did not exist
Posted by: Eldon Murray | 2007-05-13 7:16:49 PM
"Jesus was the visible, physical incarnation of God on Earth. Just because you were not there to see Him in the flesh, doesn't mean He did not exist"
Nor does it mean he did exist. The only thing here that is factual is that you have chosen to believe with no evidence. That is faith. Samuel Clemens describes faith as "believing in something you know ain't true"
It can't be proved one way or the other, so it must remain as a theory with the exception that only his actual appearance can prove anything.
There is no scientific procedure that can suffice in this matter. Therefore the existence of an almighty Deity remains in the realm of hearsay.
Hearsay means nothing. Hearsay amounts to rumor and nothing else.
I don't mean to be unkind, but I don't believe anything without evidence. So far, the evidence I do have is a planet that has many gods and many hard core believers like you. Add to that the horrid turmoil among humans that has always been prevalent on this planet.
If I were the God who created this mess, I would remain invisible too.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-13 7:39:37 PM
"Don't take this personally obc "
I won't! It was said partly tongue in cheek.
The existence of Jesus is as much in doubt as that of Julius Caesar. He is even mentioned in the Jewish Talmud, hardly a source endorsing Christianity. Whether he was the son of God and arose from the dead is a matter of belief.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-13 7:46:36 PM
"Since no one has ever come back from the dead to explain it ... "
This is a story about a different Lazurus than obc mentioned.
If you do not want to read the whole story, the ending is quite important. It is sad but true.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-05-13 7:52:19 PM
First of all I'm personally sick and tired of the bs arguments that Christians and Muslims have some common ground on extremism. There is no comparison between the two, Islam has always been a combination of a political system and religion, Christianity has no parallel.
No matter how hard these haters of western based Christian society try they always fall short of the facts. The crusades is the most common example given, yet it is always done at the complete ignorance of Islams 300 years of aggression before any crusade was ever launched. Spain fell in 711 AD, the first crusade was fought in 1010 AD, yet simple math is not enough for those self loathing socialists who deconstruct and rewrite history daily to suit their arguments.
Now for Yianni's sake apparently faith is believing in something you know is not true, I say that is utter crap. Faith is having belief in something without seeing it for yourself. I do not need to see Christ crusified to know it happened, I search my soul and believe that there is a God and there is a purpose beyond our simple existence.
As for your statement "If I were a God I'd remain invisible too." Well that's very nice, I would have thought anyone with a little bit of intelligence would have needed to look no further that Soviet Russia, Communist China and the German labour party of the late 1930's and early 40's to figure out what effects a Godless atheist society can bring us.
Posted by: niv | 2007-05-13 11:37:28 PM
"“Envy, hatred and strife" which was given as an example of the main things which divide the human race."
Isn't this an apostasy?
Matthew 10:33- “But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.”
The word “deny” means to reject or to repudiate. Automatically, a competitive framework is established. There is us and there is the Other. The Other poses a threat to the well being of us, not simply because they "deny" Christ, but they also "deny" the whole ethical and moral structure that has formed around the Christian God. It's important because it is an economical and efficient way to enhance genetically adaptive behaviour. Life on this planet has evolved to this point because of "conflict or struggle" whether biological or religious or both. Even if you don't beleive in the Christian God to you and your family and their family to believe in the Christian system.
Yanni, with all due respect, imbibes at the well of the atheistic Randians. It's poisonous, because of it's lies about individualism. Gary Cooper is compelling, but listen to the words. The "unalienable rights" of the US Declaration of Independence is followed up by the US Constitution's committment to "to ourselves and our Posterity".
Posterity is defined as "descendants: all of the offspring of a given progenitor". Clearly a collective, the offspring a British Christian people rooted in America.
Posted by: DJ | 2007-05-14 12:04:05 AM
I don't dispute that a man named Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago with some good things to say, but he was not the son of god who made the universe.
It was Samuel Clemmens who said "faith is believing something you know ain't true". That would be Mark Twain, you may be aware.
Russia was a totalitarian state that didn't want the competition of religion to undermine it's control of the sheep.
Rands idea is a godless FREE STATE where people are under their own control with a limited government to take care of the basic needs of any society with an infrastructure and borders.
I think Julius Caesar was alive once too after all, didn't they make a TV series about him recently called "Rome"? If you see it on TV it must be real. Just kidding on that one ... I do believe there is legit history on Julius Caesar as there appears to be on Christ. It's the mystical almighty deities that I have a problem with.
Posted by: Yanni | 2007-05-14 8:56:34 AM
Exactly the reason Christ came to earth in the form of a man.
There were also deniers of invisible spirits at that time and his arrival on the earth put a human face on the only sinless one.
He was the one who, when questioned, articulated the separation of church and state: “Render onto Caesar what is Caesar's; render onto God that which is Gods."
See? Two realms.
The physical world and the spiritual world which we do not yet completely understand and never will.
A denial of the spiritual world, from which we came, operates on a much different plane than the world of Caesar, where human beings maintained control over others through the threat of death.
Christ clearly demonstrated death holds no power over those who would would believe in what he said.
I, like billions of other reasonably intelligent human beings, have learned a simple lesson ... the more you learn about what he says, the more freedom you enjoy.
Nobody can force you to learn the words and the rhythms of the universe beyond the control of man.
Your choice totally.
On the other hand, believing that Caesar (the representation of all worldy governments) is the end all and be all always ends up in one way ... power for a select few, slavery for the rest.
Good luck to you.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-14 10:58:28 AM
Paul said that if the resurrection did not happen, then we as Christians are the most miserable lot, and that we are most to be pitied, because our faith is based upon a lie.
However, there are many sources that mention Jesus of Nazareth, not just the Gospels. The Babylonian Talmud mentioned above, is one such source. There is also Josephus, and there are also writings from Rome [the Life of the Caesars] that mention the sect of the Christians, and the lengths they went to to preach the Word, even under threat of death. Why would anyone do that for a lie? You say they were deluded? Unlikely, since these sorts of events transpired withing only a few decades of the crucifixion. That is not long enough for a myth to spring up. Even at that, why would the disciples, who walked and talked with Jesus while he was a human being on this earth, go so far so fast with the good news, if they knew He was dead?
Hostile parties at the time of the crucifixion would have bad nothing to gain by removing Jesus' body from the tomb. That is why the Jewish establishment had the Romans post a guard at the entrance to the tomb. Nor would the disciples have had anything to gain by stealing Jesus' remains from the tomb. To what purpose? If they had taken his body from the tomb, then they would have known he was dead, and knowing that, why would they then go throughout the known world in the time of Acts, and put their lives in jeopardy for a lie? It would not make sense to do so. It wasn't as if they were Richard Dawkins, and could sell a book selling emotion disguised as reason to a publisher and make lots of money purveying a lie to the gullible public.
Paul also mentions that Jesus appeared before 500 people at the same time. At the time he wrote, about 25 years later, many of those people where still alive.
Anyway, I can't go on too long here, Yanni except to say that it is far from a 'myth', or 'hearsay'. It is better documented than many things that we routinely accept as historically sound.
While I generally agree with your views, I don't believe that you have done your best to look into the evidence yourself.
Furthermore, upon seeking Jesus, by way of His Holy Spirit, you will find that He does, literally, exist, and live, and indwell us. And that is a good thing, let me assure you, for when we have Him within us, and when we have a personal relationship with him, we truly live in freedom from fear. Particularly, freedom from fear of death.
Posted by: DCM | 2007-05-14 11:45:42 AM
Well, Judaism does not advocate the overthrowing of democracy, the second-class status on all non-Jews, or encourage violence to establist their favourite Rabbi as the first Emperor of America (if that's the equivalent to the Caliphate), yet Judaism remains a useful term.
Judaism is pluralistic in the same manner as Christianism is also pluralistic. Same can be said of Budhists, and other isms. Therefore, what we have is an "other" that is not the same, and not the bulk of "others" that are different.
So, no, although this article sounded convincing, it fails tragically. Yet, it does open the door for some interesting discussions--which therefore, gives it a bare-pass-at-minimum, for at least being intelligent enough to open the discourse.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-05-15 10:51:51 AM
"Hmm... I might be losing my own argument."
Perhaps. I suppose it depends upon what was your argument. I actually felt that your second post bolsters your original post and here is why.
"...and when the Christian-right can't get their way, the common threat is that "we won't vote for you based on such-and-such positions", which strikes me as a little different than assassinating political opponents..."
There are groups within what is called Cultural Fundamentalism that have members who do exhibit character deficiencies such as pride and anger. Sometimes the exhibition is so great that they are accused of hatred by others. I do not think hatred is an appropriate description; however, I do feel that argumentative and strident are apt terms in addition to the already mentioned terms of pride and anger.
However, I thought it was quite obvious that the original intent of your post was to state that there really is no moral equivalency between Islamism and the most conservative form of Christianity in the Western world. Your second post seems to state that you are losing your own argument simply because the writer of an article stated a widespread, almost-universal belief within conservative Christianity (that being Mormon or LDS doctrine is not Christian doctrine) in a less than gentle manner (perhaps much less). There were no calls for violence and there is no violence reported, and (I supect even Andrew Sullivan believes) there is no expectation of violence as a result of this article.
"which strikes me as a little different than assassinating political opponents..."
The word Assassin has a root. It is found in another language and it is tied to a well-known religion. I think "Hmmm..." is in order but not quite in the manner you used it in your second post.
Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-05-15 11:06:45 AM
"The only thing here that is factual is that you have chosen to believe with no evidence."
1. The rise of the early church, with an undisputed resurrection message very, very early on. That's evidence.
2. The uniform willingness of the first apostles to be put to death rather than deny their claims about the resurrection. Some are willing to be put to death for something they believe is true, but few if any are willing to be killed for something they know to be false. Not a single apostle repudiated his witness that Christ rose from the dead and appeared to them. That's evidence.
3. The existence and witness of the four gospels. That's evidence.
4. The words of Christ recorded in the gospels. What they say, especially, about the inward human condition, the human heart. He claims that all men are sinners at heart, falling short of the demands of truth and justice and love. Christ's words can be weighed and evaluated, and one can reach some kind of opinion about him based on his words. That's evidence.
5. The fact that, based both on philosophical and scientific arguments, the universe had a beginning. If there's a Beginning, that is evidence for a Beginner, because in all of our collective human experience, everything that begins to exist has a cause. There are no exceptions to this. So there is certainly nothing illogical or unreasonable about believing in the existence of a Creator. That's evidence.
From that point, it is a matter of making diligent personal inquiry into the nature of this deity, and whether He has chosen to communicate with His creation.
6. Finally, believers enjoy the witness of God's Spirit to the truth of Christ's message. Jesus said that God keeps the secrets of his kingdom from the "wise and prudent", and reveals them unto babes. Christianity is, from first to last, a religion based on revelation.
But that does not mean that it is unreasonable.
There is plenty of evidence to make a leap to faith based on informed reason.
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2007-05-15 2:53:18 PM
Very strong and articulate reasoning.
Yet people continue to deny the evidence that's right in front of their eyes and set about to create a universe of their own making.
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
When your eyes are open, it's easy to see the wilfully blind.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-15 2:59:40 PM
re: "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see."
Yes, and --
"All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest"
Posted by: Richard Ball | 2007-05-15 3:29:06 PM
“If I were the God who created this mess, I would remain invisible too. »
Good one, old man.
...But not as funny as this:
"[...]for their particular brand of anti-religious scorn. Part of that, of course, is the hate-Bush mantra. It all kinda fits in.[...]"
Bush is an idiot.
No need for idiologies nor religions to prove that. An honest look at the guy and you will "see the truth".
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-15 3:35:38 PM
Get some help for this serious mental affliction, Marc. It will warp your entire life without serious psychological therapy.
BDS - Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-15 3:57:45 PM
Hehehe. Mentaly ill cause I firmly think Bush to be a real idiot. Wow.
I'm glad to be as mentaly ill as almost every Late show hosts and half their people (and counting) down there.
-Religion- is the serious mental affliction.
Yanni did get it right when pointing at religion as what will lost Humanity. That "My God is better than yours" crap is so childish but still, many idiots thinks it's a'right to kill in their names. God may be real, but religions have been killing people since always only for the profit of some freaks who wish to control the mass.
Remember the Jeanne D'Arc movie ?
"Who told you to kill in my name ?"
Are you so sure people that your God will accept those who participates in killings in his name ?
If the answer is still "yes", you're not so far from those Camel Jockeys and other sickos.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 8:52:15 AM
yes, because celluloid Hollywood agrees with you, that makes you correct. Sheeeeesh!
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 8:55:03 AM
obc, I beleive Dave Letterman to be a much better and ansome person than many on that blog. He would make a much better President than this idiot at least.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 9:00:04 AM
If Bush is an idiot, his is it his opponents not outsmart him and win the last election?
Could it be they are even bigger idiots than he is? That's my guess.
Always keep an open mind and the blinkers off.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-16 9:02:19 AM
That should read: If Bush is an idiot, WHY is it ...
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-16 9:15:24 AM
Take God fearing people like you in troubling times, put them in front of a Jesus freak (who is also an idiot but that dosent count since he's in your "clic") and here's your last elections.
Also Kerry was caught lying just like you so, he lost any credibility. Now that it's clear that the Bush administration is also a lying team for their own profit, they will get kicked out of office in the next election with no kiss goodbye.
No men owns the truth, only God. A man that tells you he act in the way of God is just an hypocrite who's looking for something else. The fact that Bush is a strong beleiver dosent make him an idiot but the people around him know that with that kind of President, you can control the mass. The Bush administration is giving Christianism a bad name and that's why many are loosing faith in this country. One thing for sure: Religions or not, this guy is an idiot.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 9:21:15 AM
"I beleive Dave Letterman to be a much better and ansome person than many on that blog. He would make a much better President than this idiot at least."
That tells me all I need to know about you.
Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 9:30:31 AM
"Get some help for this serious mental affliction, Marc. It will warp your entire life without serious psychological therapy."
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 9:35:32 AM
Since everybody else is an idiot and a liar, I assume you believe you are the last perfect person left on earth.
God does know all the ultimate truths ... and the truth is the truth is not found in politics.
Religious belief has dropped off because of Bush? Huh?
Pass the crack pipe. I'd like to expience some of your delusion.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-16 9:38:17 AM
Not everybody: Him and you.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 9:41:00 AM
Enjoy your delusions.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-16 9:42:16 AM
...Only if you promess me to think by yourself and to keep your eyes open, Christianism or not.
Posted by: Marc | 2007-05-16 9:54:04 AM
I have always been an open-minded human being and my Christianity has helped me through many difficult times.
Do not dare mock my experience.
Posted by: Set you free | 2007-05-16 10:17:55 AM
Ultram pain relief drug (Tramadol) is used to relieve moderate to moderately severe pain. It also may be used to treat pain caused by surgery and chronic conditions such as cancer or joint pain. This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information. Order tramadol ultram online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Tramadol
Butalbital pain relief medication is a pain reliever and sedative. It is used to relieve mild to moderate pain and tension headaches. Order generic fioricet butalbital online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Butalbital
Combination medicines containing opioid analgesics (nar-KOT-ik an-al-JEE-zicks ) such as tramadol (TRA-ma-dole) and acetaminophen (a-seat-a-MIN-oh-fen ) are used to relieve pain. An opioid analgesic and acetaminophen used together may provide better pain relief than either medicine used alone. In some cases, you may get relief with lower doses of each medicine. Order Ultracet online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Ultracet
Fioricet pain relief drug is the combination of acetaminophen, butalbital, and caffeine is used to relieve tension headaches. Order generic fioricet online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Fioricet
Wellbutrin antidepressant drug (Bupropion) is used to treat depression. Bupropion is used to help people stop smoking. This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information. Order generic wellbutrin bupropion online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Wellbutrin
Diflucan Flucanazole medication is an antifungal agent used to treat infections in certain areas of the body caused by yeast and yeast-like organisms. Generic Diflucan works best when the amount of medicine in your body is kept at a constant level. Do this by taking the medication at evenly spaced intervals. Take as directed since different conditions require different methods of use. This drug is usually taken once daily. Another dosing method involves taking the drug for one week per month until treatment is completed. Continue to take this medication until the full prescribed amount is finished even if symptoms disappear after a few days. Stopping the medication too early may allow the yeast to continue to grow resulting in a relapse of the infection. Order generic diflucan online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/index.php?prod=Diflucan
More top drug stores:
* canadian medications - http://www.canadianmedications.org/
* generic drugs online - http://www.drugs-generic.info/
* weight loss pills - http://www.weightloss.lt/
* quality cheap phentermine 37.5 mg - http://phentermine.weightloss.lt/
Posted by: dorothy | 2007-12-04 7:08:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.