Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, May 24, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Angry atheists are hot authors

by Rachel Zoll, AP, Yahoo

Thanks to Sam Khouri for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070524/ap_on_re_us/atheist_authors

hitchensThe time for polite debate is over. Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith and reaching the top of the best-seller list, a sign of widespread resentment over the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.

Christopher Hitchens' book, "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything," has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.

Sam Harris was a little-known graduate student until he wrote the phenomenally successful "The End of Faith" and its follow-up, "Letter to a Christian Nation." Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" struck similar themes — and sold.

"There is something like a change in the Zeitgeist," Hitchens said, noting that sales of his latest book far outnumber those for his earlier work that had challenged faith. "There are a lot of people, in this country in particular, who are fed up with endless lectures by bogus clerics and endless bullying."

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said the books' success reflect a new vehemence in the atheist critique.

"I don't believe in conspiracy theories," Mouw said, "but it's almost like they all had a meeting and said, 'Let's counterattack.'"

The war metaphor is apt. The writers see themselves in a battle for reason in a world crippled by superstition. In their view, Muslim extremists, Jewish settlers and Christian right activists are from the same mold, using fairy tales posing as divine scripture to justify their lust for power. Bad behavior in the name of religion is behind some of the most dangerous global conflicts and the terrorist attacks in the U.S., London and Madrid, the atheists say.

As Hitchens puts it: "Religion kills."

The Rev. Douglas Wilson, senior fellow in theology at New Saint Andrews College, a Christian school in Moscow, Idaho, sees the books as a sign of secular panic. He says nonbelievers are finally realizing that, contrary to what they were taught in college, faith is not dead.

Signs of believers' political and cultural might abound.

Religious challenges to teaching evolution are still having an impact, 80 years after the infamous Scopes "Monkey" trial. The dramatic growth in homeschooling and private Christian schools is raising questions about the future of public education. Religious leaders have succeeded in putting some limits on stem-cell research.

And the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a national ban on a procedure critics call "partial-birth abortion" — the first federal curbs on an abortion procedure in a generation — came after decades of religious lobbying for conservative justices.

"It sort of dawned on the secular establishment that they might lose here," said Wilson, who is debating Hitchens on christianitytoday.com and has written the book "Letter from a Christian Citizen" in response to Harris. "All of this is happening precisely because there's a significant force that they have to deal with."

Indeed, believers far outnumber nonbelievers in America. In an 2005 AP-Ipsos poll on religion, only 2 percent of U.S. respondents said they did not believe in God. Other surveys concluded that 14 percent of Americans consider themselves secular, a term that can include believers who say they have no religion.

Some say liberal outrage over the policies of President Bush is partly fueling sales, even though Hitchens famously supported the invasion of Iraq.

To those Americans, the nation's born-again president is the No. 1 representative of the religious right activists who helped put him in office. Critics see Bush's Christian faith behind some of his worst decisions and his stubborn defense of the war in Iraq.

"There is this general sense that evangelicals have really gained a lot of power in the United States and the Bush administration seems to represent that in some significant ways," said Christian Smith, a sociologist of religion at the University of Notre Dame. "A certain group of people sees it that way and that's really disturbing."

Mouw said conservative Christians are partly to blame for the backlash. The rhetoric of some evangelical leaders has been so strident, they have invited the rebuke, the seminary president said.

"We have done a terrible job of presenting our perspective as a plausible world view that has implications for public life and for education, presenting that in a way that is sensitive to the concerns of people who may disagree," he said. "Whatever may be wrong with Christopher Hitchens attacks on religious leaders, we have certainly already matched it in our attacks."

Given the popularity of the anti-religion books so far, publishers are expected to roll out even more in the future. Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor for Publishers Weekly, says religion has been one of the fastest-growing categories in publishing in the last 15 years, and the rise of books by atheists is "the flip-side of that."

"It was just the time," she said, "for the atheists to take the gloves off."

Comments 1 - 33 of 33 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #44437 by blueollie on May 24, 2007 at 6:02 pm

The Rev. Douglas Wilson, senior fellow in theology at New Saint Andrews College, a Christian school in Moscow, Idaho, sees the books as a sign of secular panic. He says nonbelievers are finally realizing that, contrary to what they were taught in college, faith is not dead.


Who is this clown, and what universities did he go to? No one that I know of thought that faith was dead, at least among the public.

It is true that faith is dead among the elite scientists and is in the minority among the rank-and-file scientists (such as myself).

Personally, I love it that these books are doing so well; it tells me that there are millions of us (in the U. S.) who are fed up by the assumption that all of us subscribe to the standard superstitions.

Other Comments by blueollie

2. Comment #44439 by OkiMike on May 24, 2007 at 6:14 pm

I'm content with knowing that many of the readers in question are people of faith or people "on the fence" and willing to pick up a book that questions their assumptions about the world. Hopefully this will be a force for good and will open up debate.

I just wish that people like Rachel Zoll (above) would stop using the same old tired cliches when describing atheists as if all of these new books didn't have something better to say.

Lastly, I'm looking forward to my book, "God is a Terrorist" joining the list!

Other Comments by OkiMike

3. Comment #44440 by peahix on May 24, 2007 at 6:24 pm

"Indeed, believers far outnumber nonbelievers in America. In an 2005 AP-Ipsos poll on religion, only 2 percent of U.S. respondents said they did not believe in God."
*****************

whenever i read some statistics about percentages of believers vs non-believers, i can't help but get the feeling that the large numbers of "believers" are mostly just folks taking pascal's wager at its most simplistic level... ie, when they're presented with a poll which probes their belief in god, there's a paranoid, knee-jerk affirmative response because *certainly* god is watching you when you're writing something down and setting it in stone, even though you're supposedly anonymous to the folks taking the poll... so even though "belief in god" doesn't really factor into your day-to-day life, this is the sort of situation where you'd best not take your chances being totally honest...

Other Comments by peahix

4. Comment #44442 by blueollie on May 24, 2007 at 6:34 pm

Actually, I think that lots of people say "yeah, sure" because in most communities in the US, that is the "default" response.

Typical might be people like my late Dad or my dear yoga teacher.

My Dad was in no way religuous and didn't believe in Jesus or the Bible. He thought that something was "out there" and that was about it.

My yoga teacher isn't "a beliver" either, but she thinks that something (spirits, ghosts, etc.) exist; "too many coincidences" she says. But she knows little (nor cares that much) about the standard religions.

Truth be told, lots of folks just haven't thought about it that hard, and are more comfortable in saying "yeah, there is some sort of god" to explain what they don't know rather than saying "I don't know the answer to that".

Other Comments by blueollie

5. Comment #44443 by peahix on May 24, 2007 at 6:41 pm

blueollie, i agree, but i would also venture to guess that most folks will say something like that at least partially out of fear of some sort of consequences if they *don't* profess belief in god. sure, many may not think about it that much, but most folks have learned, at a minimum, that lack of belief in god supposedly has serious consequences, so they go with the visceral response, assuming it's good enough to just say "yeah, i believe in god," without further qualification or specificity.

Other Comments by peahix

6. Comment #44444 by PAR1138 on May 24, 2007 at 6:48 pm

 avatar
The Rev. Douglas Wilson, senior fellow in theology at New Saint Andrews College, a Christian school in Moscow, Idaho, sees the books as a sign of secular panic. He says nonbelievers are finally realizing that, contrary to what they were taught in college, faith is not dead.

A delusion of a delusion. So pathetic.

Other Comments by PAR1138

7. Comment #44445 by freeurmind on May 24, 2007 at 6:55 pm

As much as I want to see all these J freaks go back in the cave where they belong I wish these books ,and hopefully the ones to come,will spark in many a little sense of reality and get people thinking that maybe what they have been believing all this time,for whatever reason,is not the ultimate truth,ignite the skepticism that lays dormant in all of us and with that bring the debate on a larger stage where ideas can be heard and challenged .I think if we can do that we would have a big impact on the minds of so many people who have been believers until this time because of sheer ignorance,passive ignorance.I believe that many people will have a hard time shaking the rust off their brains but the stronger the shaking the better the chances they will start thinking .For the same reason I think the approach of these latest books is the right one ,playing nice will not get us far.Let's punch the religious bag hard.

Other Comments by freeurmind

8. Comment #44448 by ? on May 24, 2007 at 7:18 pm

 avatarI wonder how the poll cited in this article was phrased.

Polls with simple all or nothing questions (example: "I am an atheist____ I believe in God___--check one of the above") show believers as an overwealming majority and pundits use them to imply that orthodox belief is the norm.

Sets of questions that allow for doubt and complexity would probably show a more interesting and realistic picture. How strong is their belief? How specific? How personal is their God-concept? Do they pray (expecting an answer)?

Other Comments by ?

9. Comment #44451 by atheisticism on May 24, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Asking someone if they believe in god is like asking if they believe in glurk. God has been defined in so many different ways, the question is totally meaningless. What kind of response would we get to the question "do you believe in the existence of anything for which there is no evidence?"

Other Comments by atheisticism

10. Comment #44452 by MIND_REBEL on May 24, 2007 at 8:16 pm

 avatarLOL at this meme infested rant. Soon as I saw it was from a religious standpoint i stopped reading.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

11. Comment #44454 by Jayday on May 24, 2007 at 8:43 pm

I am gratified to know that there are people buying Hitchens', Dawkins' and Harris' books. Before the catastrophy of the George Bush presidency and then 9/11 and the Iraq quagmire, I suspect most Americans wouldn't have paid much attention to these authors. Not because they didn't have anything worthwhile to say about religion, but because our world in American was predominantly a live and let live existence. Dawkins rightly characterized it by saying that most religious practice was pretty benign. I may not have been a theist, but if my neighbor was, it wasn't a big deal. However, when our government positioned itself to legislate "morality" and set a foreign policy based on their right wing Christian fundamentalist beliefs, then more people have taken notice! Of course these authors are "hot," and it is a great thing. They are saying what we've always wanted to say but were never motivated. As Dawkins says, we were "taught" not to discuss religion in company. He is absolutely right, there are high stakes, and we shouldn't be bullied into painting a face of false respect by people who are taking away our personal freedom and try to replace it with some supernatural garbage or who paint their idea of a moral world as some simplistic fairytale without nuance and depth. Take away the fear mongers who try to manipulate us and we see the emperor really is naked.

Other Comments by Jayday

12. Comment #44456 by ButteryAtheist on May 24, 2007 at 8:54 pm

Hitchens 'pwns' this Wilson character in their 'debate' at christianitytoday.com.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

Other Comments by ButteryAtheist

13. Comment #44457 by MelM on May 24, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Harsh rhetoric from religion is at fault? Nope. Blame these instead:

  • Dominionism (see Kingdom Coming)

  • Creationism in the schools

  • Wingnut "science" museums

  • Screwing up American history. (I'm reading Liars for Jesus now.)
  • Court stripping attempts

  • Breaking down the wall of separation

  • Trying to end abortion

  • Attacking Oregon's "Death With Dignity Act"

  • The "Bible Literacy" Trojan horses

  • Anti stem cell research

  • Giving away government money for Christian charity

  • Rediculous promotion of sexual abstinence

  • The promotion of senseless prattle
You bet we're angry! I have some respect for those believers of past centuries who were finding their way out of a religious nightmare but I'll have no tolerance for those believers of today who are trying to work their way back into one.

Other Comments by MelM

14. Comment #44458 by grolaw on May 24, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Consider: Monica Goodling considers herself a "good Christian" while invoking her 5th Amendment right not to incriminate herself.

Her testimony disclosed "caging lists" that disenfranchised Black, or Hispanic or poor or military voters (as implemented by Tim Griffin - now the US Attorney for the Northern District of Arkansas). To top it off, the DOJ liaison to the White House (a 33 year-old woman) has the memory of a chronic pot-head - if you were to believe her testimony.

Her religion obviously does not prohibit her breaking the law. One of the top ten (10) people in the DOJ has the memory of an Alzheimer's patient? I think not.

Only 150 more Regent Law School Grads still working in the DOJ/Executive branch. God's little criminals.

Is there any doubt why Prof. Dawkins and Sam Harris are best sellers? People are disgusted with self-satisfied little religious bigots.

Other Comments by grolaw

15. Comment #44463 by debaser71 on May 24, 2007 at 9:46 pm

The way I see it is that these articles talk about what's IMO an important topic, ATHEISM! Even though it's full of insults the very fact that atheism is being talked about at all is a good thing. That more people are open to talk about such things favors us. We have reality on our side.

Anyway most of these articles are just scrubs jumping on a badwagon and recycling the same set of negative adjectives (angry, militant, vehement, assault, etc) over and over. IMO they pretty much play into our hands by keeping the debate going.

Other Comments by debaser71

16. Comment #44465 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 9:56 pm

 avatarTruth be told, lots of folks just haven't thought about it that hard, and are more comfortable in saying "yeah, there is some sort of god" to explain what they don't know rather than saying "I don't know the answer to that".

Other than a fairly hard core minority this is absolutely the case. Atheism, simply hasn't been given enough profile as a genuine "option".

Myself and my wife just spent an interesting week helping a fellow previous missionary complete her deconversion.

She still has tremendous fear of hell, inculcated at a very young age, but she is working through that.

Conversations online and off, are what are going to change the world. Getting religion on the agenda and subject to vigorous debate is all that is needed for the change to begin to take.

On youtube we are having a "Bash Islam" week at the moment, generating lots of controversy. Come and have a look!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

17. Comment #44469 by Big T on May 24, 2007 at 10:07 pm

The name 'Richard' has 7 letters in it. The name 'Dawkins' has 7 letters in it. And, '.net', counting the dot, has 4 characters in it. 7 + 7 + 4 = 18. 6 + 6 + 6 = 18. Therefore, 'richarddawkins.net' = 666. Can't any of you fools see it? We are all doomed. AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! We'll all burn in hell forever! AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!

Other Comments by Big T

18. Comment #44470 by Mishakal on May 24, 2007 at 10:18 pm

 avatar[quote]"It was just the time," she said, "for the atheists to take the gloves off."[/quote]

I like this line from the article.

Other Comments by Mishakal

19. Comment #44473 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 10:32 pm

 avatarTherefore, 'richarddawkins.net' = 666. Can't any of you fools see it? We are all doomed. AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!! We'll all burn in hell forever! AAAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!

As it happens, it's looking increasingly likely that the number was 616.

Thus invalidating about 1500 years of occult numerology. Nice:-)

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44169

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

20. Comment #44474 by LDmiller on May 24, 2007 at 10:41 pm

 avatarHaving read the 'debate' at

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

I must say that Wilson was the most worthy adversary to Hitchens that I have yet seen.

He caught Hitchens in error on several points of fact that Hitchens had made (and that Hitchens did not respond to), and he stayed "on point" in his arguments. He did not ramble through the usual religious laundry list.

Too bad that Wilson was on the wrong side of the table; he did a commendable job of debating.

In this case I think he fought Hitchens to a draw, as Hitchens was certainly not in top form.

Other Comments by LDmiller

21. Comment #44475 by MelM on May 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm

And, if Falwell wasn't enough to make one angry, try Fred Phelps--actually, I think this video is hilarious: Jerry Falwell Split Hell Wide Open. (Select a player on the lower right.)

Other Comments by MelM

22. Comment #44478 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on May 24, 2007 at 11:01 pm

 avatar21. Comment #44475 by MelM on May 24, 2007 at 10:47 pm

And, if Falwell wasn't enough to make one angry, try Fred Phelps--actually, I think this video is hilarious: Jerry Falwell Split Hell Wide Open. (Select a player on the lower right.)


The conclusive and objective evidence ..... damn. That guy is some joke, and a graphic lesson of everything wrong with religion.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

23. Comment #44481 by peahix on May 25, 2007 at 12:12 am

re comment #20, i just read this debate too, and in my opinion, it wasn't that wilson was a "worthy adversary," more that hitchens seemed to have taken a very lazy/bored approach with his responses. there were many easily dismissable points made by wilson that hitchens simply ignored, which, to the uninformed reader, comes off as hitchens not having any good answers for those points.

it seems odd, since presumably in this format, each side could take as long as they wanted to consider and compose a reply. maybe they were limited on the word count of their replies, i don't know, but surely hitchens could have come up with economic retorts that addressed many more points than he did.

i'm almost tempted to rebut wilson's points myself.



Other Comments by peahix

24. Comment #44482 by Veronique on May 25, 2007 at 12:27 am

 avatarOh MEiM

Hilarious is absolutely right. What a bloody diatribe by Phelps!!

I just loved 'Fraudwell'. What a great moniker!

Thank you soooooooooo much for that link. I am laughing into my wine.

My little alimentary canals (the CATS) are looking at me as if I have gone mad. 'Food' they say, 'forget this crazy mirth, we want food. That's all that's important in our lives. Stop laughing! and feed us.'

Well, Phelps is convinced that Fraudwell is feeding the fires. And America is lost. So sad.

What a pair of dunderheads they are/were. And Billy Graham has fallen from Phelp's grace as well. Isn't it gorgeous? They keep fighting amongst themselves for the crown of 'Biggest Dickhead Ever'. And they all win!!

How wonderful. Thanks so much. And the cats need food!!
V

Other Comments by Veronique

25. Comment #44486 by Jesse. on May 25, 2007 at 12:55 am

I just read Hitchens vs Wilson and I agree with peahix, Hitchens seemed a bit bored. I got bored to, reading Wilsons arguments. One passage in particular annoyed me.
Wilson said: "I am quite prepared to cheerfully grant (and not for the sake of the argument) that you are my intellectual superior. But our discussion is not about who has more horsepower under his intellectual hood—the point of discussion is whether your superior car is on the right road."
This type of reasoning happens a lot with the religious, also in my personal experience with theists. They say: "OK, your arguments are better than mine. But that's just because you're smarter than me. It doesn't mean I'm wrong"
WTF? So now winning the argument has no bearing on the matter at all?? This really, really annoys me.

Other Comments by Jesse.

26. Comment #44487 by Veronique on May 25, 2007 at 12:58 am

 avatarBrian

It is increasingly looking like 616.

Nero Caesar in Hebrew (where each letter is enumerated and I didn't make a note of the numbers-damn!) appears to equate to 666.

Gaius (284) Caesar(332) in Hebrew seems to match Caligula's dates and equates to 626. I did make a note of those numbers.

Simple subtraction means that Nero must have a numerical equivalent of 334.

This stuff came out of Tony Robinson's BBC show The Doomsday Code which I saw in December last year. It truly frightened me. Everyone he interviewed (well, nearly) was nuts.

Madness is not diminishing at all. Big T, fancy footwork there. I have never given any credence to numerology but it is incredible just how many people do!. It's as arcane as astrology and, I think, closely linked.

I despair
V

Other Comments by Veronique

27. Comment #44488 by scottishgeologist on May 25, 2007 at 1:00 am

 avatarBrilliant link to that video of Phelps. I just love the way these guys try to outdo one another to try to be the "True Believer" (TM) (as Pastor Deacon Fred would say.

And they are all so sure that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.

Been said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Could also add that religion is the last refuge of the nutjob.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

28. Comment #44495 by Veronique on May 25, 2007 at 2:11 am

 avatarBack on topic.

Angry atheists - I don't think so. Frustrated, horrified, frightened, yes.

That the 21st century can see the burgeoning of belief in bronze age mythology to the detriment of a rational understanding of the world in which we live is, indeed, frightening.

All the hard won work taken to describe our physical location is meant to evince a 'ho hum' from us? No wonder our well known people are coming out saying 'hold on a moment. We knew jack shit when the holy books were written (and from the view of a small core of people who wanted to increase their numbers so it didn't matter what BS was recorded, so long as it hypnotised the masses). We have come a long way since then. We have worked out how to substantiate evidence that they didn't know back then. We are moving forward and fast and our methodology is getting better all the time because we communicate with each other and open up the gaps in our understanding. We are trying to advance our understanding, not stay in an ill-conceived past.

That religiosity is growing and attempting to bypass these gains is enough to frighten all of us. That ID is being proposed as a scientific option to actual science is enough to horrify us.

And you want to call us angry? Wrong word. Absolutely and utterly frustrated. Therein lies the motivation for the spate of literature that is being published and will continue to be published in this fight to advance rationalism and negate superstition.

And well may it advance. It is absolutely needed. These are dire days. We have a fruit loop President of the US in charge. It is very dangerous for all of us. We stand to lose our world - the only one we will ever know.

V

Other Comments by Veronique

29. Comment #44496 by scooternyc on May 25, 2007 at 2:12 am

 avatarI find the rhetoric of "angry atheists" so entertaining. When for the greater majority of history it's been the religious who have exuded and exampled their anger to those who will not believe as they do.

Truly Islam has much in common with Christians - convert or die. Christians just happen to be killing Americans much more slowly and implicitly than the Islamic nutcases who strap bombs on themselves.

Frankly, I'd rather believe in Santa Claus:

He's always jolly

He values goodness

He doesn't discriminate

He's generous

He laughs a lot



Doesn't Santa sound like a better myth to believe in? : )

Other Comments by scooternyc

30. Comment #44591 by newatheist on May 25, 2007 at 5:12 am

 avatarThe title seems set to raise the hackles but the author doesn't seem to be saying that there isn't any reason for atheists to be angry.

I thought this article was impartial.
Firstly, the religious viewpoint was telling, as always. (blockquote warning)

Point -
The Rev. Douglas Wilson…sees the books as a sign of secular panic.

Counterpoint -
…homeschooling and private Christian schools is raising questions about the future of public education. Religious leaders have succeeded in putting some limits on stem-cell research...

Point -
"It sort of dawned on the secular establishment that they might lose here," said Wilson...

And to close…
Counterpoint -
"It was just the time…for the atheists to take the gloves off."


Other Comments by newatheist

31. Comment #44610 by MIND_REBEL on May 25, 2007 at 5:33 am

 avatar"It was just the time…for the atheists to take the gloves off.

I agree. I have zero respect or sympathy for anyone thats controlled by thier religious memes. They know enough- there's no excuse for not being an atheist. Religion is destroying the world. You're either with us, and science, or you're against us, and with the extremists.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

32. Comment #44637 by Stuart Paul Wood on May 25, 2007 at 6:05 am

Angry atheists?

Yeah I'm angry. Some things are enough to make you angry, and there's no shame in that - contrary to what the Bible says. If people didn't follow up their despair or frustration with anger then nothing would get done about the things that make us feel this way. People shouldn't see anger as a purely negative state of mind. Its clearly been put in all of us through evolution and is a vital tool - as and when it is needed.

Its when anger isn't coupled with reason that leads to problems.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

33. Comment #44834 by Mr. Mark on May 25, 2007 at 11:21 am

I've seen a big change in the way Xians converse with non-believers.

They used to hit us with the pseudo-benign, "my telling you that you're going to burn in eternal hellfire is born of the love that I have for you, and that love that Jesus has for us all," to something along the lines of, "you're an evil person who's responsible for crimes on the level of Stalin and Hitler. All of the problems in the USA stem from the 2% of you evil atheists who don't believe in Jesus like the rest of us do."

So, who's testy these days?

Other Comments by Mr. Mark
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: