How Their Minds Work
There is a way of looking at the world, where one would expect a person to gather some "facts" and join them together using "logic" to draw reasonable conclusions about the world, then use those reasoned conclusions to inform decision-making. I know it's strange to suggest it, when it is so much easier to mush through and say anything that comes into your head, with a smirk on your face.
You've got to watch this three-minute video. Presidential hopeful Rick Perry is being interviewed in front of an audience. It appears that audience members have submitted questions, and here the interviewer reads one about abstinence education.
Because I know that some of you will not click the button and watch this, I am transcribing it for you. I don't usually leave in the stuttering and pauses but in this case that's the point. This guy feels he deserves to be President of the United States, he is sure he is qualified to express support for a policy that he does not understand at all, doesn't know how it's supposed to work, can't explain why it doesn't work, doesn't have any idea why anybody cares about it. To him, all this is simply obvious. There is no need to cloud his belief system with facts and logic.
I know it's a cliche already but it's a perfect one: Rick Perry is just like George Bush, but dumber.
You've got to watch this three-minute video. Presidential hopeful Rick Perry is being interviewed in front of an audience. It appears that audience members have submitted questions, and here the interviewer reads one about abstinence education.
Because I know that some of you will not click the button and watch this, I am transcribing it for you. I don't usually leave in the stuttering and pauses but in this case that's the point. This guy feels he deserves to be President of the United States, he is sure he is qualified to express support for a policy that he does not understand at all, doesn't know how it's supposed to work, can't explain why it doesn't work, doesn't have any idea why anybody cares about it. To him, all this is simply obvious. There is no need to cloud his belief system with facts and logic.
Q: Governor, why does Texas continue with abstinence education programs when they don't seem to be working, in fact I think we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate in the country, in the United States.
A: Abstinence works.
Audience: [ Laughter ]
Q: But we are the third highest teen pregnancy, we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate among all states in the country, the questioner's point is, it doesn't seem to be working. Abstinence education.
A: It-it-it-it works, uh, maybe it's uh, it's the, uh, maybe it's the way it's being taught or the way that it's, that it's, being applied out there but the fact of the matter is, uh, it is the best form of, uh, to teach our children.
Q: Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?
A: I'm uh, I'm uh, I'm just gonna tell ya, [ chuckle ] I'm go tell ya from my own personal, uh, life, abstinence works.
Audience: [ Laughter ]
A: And and and the point is, if it, if if if we're not teaching it and if we're not impressing it upon them then no, but if if the, if the point is, y'know we're gonna go, uh, stand up here and say listen, y'all go have sex and go have the whatever is going on, and and, we'll, we'll worry with that and here are the, here is the ways to have safe sex, I-I-I'm sorry, call me old-fashioned if you want, but that is not what I'm gonna stand up in front of the people of the state of Texas and say that's the way, uh, we need to go and forget about abstinence.
Q: That's not what the que-, with respect, governor, that's not what the question's asking. The question is simply saying we're spending on abstinence education with the third highest teen pregnancy rate, uh, in the country. Is there a problem, disconnect between one and the other?
A: [ Long pause ] I don't know [ pause ] but it gets in line with uh, um [ pause ] it gets in line with other programs that we have that we spend money on and do they work one hundred percent? Or do they work five percent? And that's a bigger and a better issue than, well we have the third highest teenage pregnancy rate. Uh [ pause ]. Are we, on the amount of money that we are spending, are we getting a return on that that is appropriate?
Q: And your belief is that we are.
A: I think that those are some dollars that are well spent. For instance, we're spending dollars to check kids for steroids. Right? And what'd we find? Seven? Fifteen? And we spent X numbers of, of uh, look I'm not gonna spend.
Q: You think that's a poor expenditure?
A: I'm saying that if, no I'm gonna make a comparable here, if that's a good expenditure then I would suggest to you that the dollars we're spending on abstinence education is a good expenditure. Rick Perry Struggles to answer Question on Abstinence
I know it's a cliche already but it's a perfect one: Rick Perry is just like George Bush, but dumber.
posted by JimK at 7:43 PM
33 Comments:
Rick Perry is a scumbag. His attitude towards this is pervasive in all his actions as governer to the detriment of all Texans.
There was a prisoner on death row who was convicted on highly questionable arson theories. New science overturned the old beliefs the prisoner was convicted on and a scientific revue was to be tabled showing the prisoner was innocent and Perry refused to let it happen. He fired three board members and replaced them with his own cronies so they could rush the execution through before the new evidence could be looked at. To Rick Perry it was infinitely preferable to execute an innocent man than to admit his justice system had made a mistake. Once again, it was "Don't cloud my minds with the facts, we have to look infallible at all costs".
Rick Perry is the epitome of what's wrong with conservative Republicans. My heart sinks knowing evil men like him are in positions of power.
Interesting clip. Why didn't Gov. Perry just say, "Maybe we are not teaching it well enough."? Or I suppose he could have said, "Well, we Texans are a pretty virile and energetic bunch. Can you imagine how bad the numbers would have been if we didn't have Abstinence-Only education?" I guess it would be impolitic to say the latter.
Seriously, I suggest that this shows that Gov. Perry has an ideological belief that supports Abstinence-Only education and that no set of facts would cause him to question that belief. That is why it was so difficult for him to respond to the question. If one never thinks about what one believes, then one will be unable to respond effectively to challenges to those beliefs.
Perry also believes public-school science classes should present students with both science (evolution) and religion (intelligent design), assuming young people are "smart enough to figure out which one is right." Here’s a radical idea: Perry should consider a similar approach to sex-ed.
I can't imagine why Perry would think children can figure out which one is right when he can't himself.
intelligent design isn't religion because there is evidence supporting it and it doesn't imply any particular creed
indeed, loking at the evidence, Martin Rhees, renowned physicist in Britain, has speculated that aliens planted life here
how is that religious?
liberals got a lunatic judge to rule this way, but that doesn't make it so
"why Perry would think children can figure out which one is right when he can't himself"
he's figured it out fine
ID is correct
The exhaustive decision in the Dover, Pa., case a few years back put to rest any idea that creationism or "intelligent design" is anything other than a theological -- not a scientific -- doctrine. See http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
sure, David
just like Roe v Wade put to rest the idea that parents don't have a right to kill their children
or like the Pope put to rest the idea that Galileo was right
or like Plessy v Ferguson put to rest the idea that seperate but equal is not equal
your faith in the infallibility of cranky old men in black robes is very touching
the judge in Dover didn't, by any chance, learn law at Harvard, did he?
Any teabagger can tell you all about the infallibility of the founding fathers. They might even remind you it was the founding fathers who spinkled "cranky old men in black robes" throughout our nation's judiciary.
the judge in Dover didn't, by any chance, learn law at Harvard, did he?
No, he didn't. Wikipedia reports:
"John Edward Jones III (born June 13, 1955) is an American lawyer and jurist from the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. A Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush as federal judge on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in February 2002 and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002. He is best known for his presiding role in the landmark Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case, in which the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes was ruled to be unconstitutional...
He earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Dickinson College in 1977 and law degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1980. At that time, the school was unaffiliated with Pennsylvania State University."
Anon,
Analogy is not proof.
Have you actually read the Dover decision? Or do you simply accept on faith that it misstates the facts?
'Intelligent design theory' is built on the belief that evolution does not sufficiently explain the complexity that exists in life on Earth and that science should recognize the existence of an 'intelligent designer.' Proponents assert that their criticism of evolution is scientific, not religious. But the various aspects of intelligent design theory have not yet been subjected to the normal process of scientific experimentation and debate, nor have they been accepted by the scientific community. No research supporting the claims of intelligent design has ever been published in any recognized, professional, peer-reviewed scientific journal. The question of whether there is an intelligent designer is untestable using the methods of science, and therefore is not a scientific claim."
Since the claims of intelligent design are not adequately tested as science, they are inappropriate for the science classroom.
I think you really need to watch the interview to get a true sense of how stumped Perry was by this line of questioning.
Bad anonymous said "how is that religious?".
The Dover trial demonstrated this perfectly. While in court the religionists scrupulously avoided any statements that suggested so-called "intelligent design" was motivated by religion. Unfortunately for them when they were out in public they made statement after statement about how this court case was going to get religion back into schools and the christian god was the designer and those speeches were recorded and shown in court nicely demonstrating that they were lying when they said "intelligent design" had nothing to do with religion.
The religious nature of the "intelligent design" argument was a significant factor in them losing the Dover court case.
"Since the claims of intelligent design are not adequately tested as science, they are inappropriate for the science classroom."
the theory of intelligent design is an explanation for empirically observed data
this is no different for the theory of evolution, which, if true, is a process that no one has ever observed in an controlled experimental setting, taking place over periods that vastly exceed the lifetime of researchers
despite the fact that many assertions of evolution are untestable and that its adherents regularly make public statements that evolution supports atheism, it is allowed to be taught in schools
intelligent design, based as it is on an explanation of empirically observed data, should likewise be taught, regardless of whether it supports any religious point of view
the seperation of church and state was purposed to protect the freedom of religion not to ban or destroy all religious points of view other than atheism
atheism is a religious point of view and the state should make no law protecting its establishment
the state should now ban any fact ot theory that supports any particular religious point of view, but, instead, should be neutral to it
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bad anonymous "intelligent design" is an "explanation" without any evidence to support it.
I can say the invisible unicorn in my back yard farted life into existence 10,000 years ago and that would be an explanation for empiracly observed data but it would have no more evidence to support it than "intelligent design" does.
Bad anonymous said "atheism is a religious point of view and the state should make no law protecting its establishment".
A religious viewpoint is a viewpoint that is based on belief in the supernatural. Atheism is not a religious viewpoint, it is an a-religious viewpoint, a religionless viewpoint. At best you could say it is a viewpoint about religion but it is simply incorrect to say it is a viewpoint that involves belief in the supernatural.
Bad anonymous said "despite the fact that many assertions of evolution are untestable and that its adherents regularly make public statements that evolution supports atheism, it is allowed to be taught in schools".
Neither atheists nor believers in evolution have stated evolution supports atheism. Many believers in evolution are also believers in the christian god. The only people who've suggested evolution supports a belief in atheism are the christians opposed to teaching evolution.
Bad anonymous said "the seperation of church and state was purposed to protect the freedom of religion not to ban or destroy all religious points of view other than atheism".
It was purposed for two reasons, to protect freedom of religion and to prevent the state from imposing any religion on the public. The second purpose is necessary to achieving the first pupose. That is why religious viewpoints like "intelligent design" cannot constitutionally be taught in public schools.
Bad anonymous said "atheism is a religious point of view and the state should make no law protecting its establishment".
If you truly believe atheism is a religious viewpoint then it is necessarily protected as a religion just like any other. The first amendment doesn't say you have freedom of religion for any religion other than atheism. Clearly you do not believe it is a religion that is why you suggest it is not a protected freedom.
As to what the first amendment means, it is rather preposterous to suggest it means you can freely possess whatever religion you want but you are not free to reject all religions. If one is free to reject any religion one does not believe in on what basis can you say one is not free to reject every religion? No rational person thinks the founding fathers intended people to be free to chose a religion but that a person must chose one.
Bad anonymous said "the state should now ban any fact ot theory that supports any particular religious point of view, but, instead, should be neutral to it".
The state has not banned any "fact" or "theory" that supports religious viewpoints, it is neutral to them, that is why such unsupported theories don't deserve to be included in science class and promoted without merit - that would be an establishment of a state religion.
The only people who claim the theory of evolution "supports atheism" are religious nuts.
Scientists understand evolution neither requires nor rules out the existence of a supernatural being.
One of the most damning moments in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial involved the use of a text-matching program to compare Of Pandas and People to the earlier editions. Sure enough, most of the book was identical to the earlier versions. The only difference was that all instances of "creator", "creationism" and "creation science" were replaced with "intelligent agent" and "intelligent design." One copy of the book that surfaced during the case even contained the "missing link" between creationists and intelligent design proponents: the cdesign proponentsists.
For more information, see http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cdesign_proponentsists
(Excerpt: "an editor had apparently copied and pasted "design proponents" over the word "creationists" but in doing so had pasted over only part of the latter, resulting in a weird neologism, "cdesign proponentsists".")
nasty Priya:
"Neither atheists nor believers in evolution have stated evolution supports atheism"
TTF anonymous:
"The only people who claim the theory of evolution "supports atheism" are religious nuts"
Richard Dawkins:
"understanding evolution led me to atheism"
"Bad anonymous "intelligent design" is an "explanation" without any evidence to support it"
evolution is a theory about certain empirically observed phenomena
ID is another theory about the same data
neither is superior to the other and, unless a specific religion is mentioned, it's irrelevant that the theory might tend to support one religious viewpoint or another
"I can say the invisible unicorn in my back yard farted life into existence 10,000 years ago and that would be an explanation for empiracly observed data but it would have no more evidence to support it than "intelligent design" does."
you'd have no evidence supporting that but both evolution nad ID are plausible explanations for the oberved data
"it is simply incorrect to say atheism is a viewpoint that involves belief in the supernatural"
I didn't, I said it was a religious viewpoint- it posits a belief in something that has no proof: that there is no God
"Neither atheists nor believers in evolution have stated evolution supports atheism"
oh, it's not hard to find those who say just that
I'm sure if one would read through your quotes, you've said so yourself
"It was purposed for two reasons, to protect freedom of religion and to prevent the state from imposing any religion on the public"
the founding fathers would clearly oppose imposed atheism
"The second purpose is necessary to achieving the first pupose. That is why religious viewpoints like "intelligent design" cannot constitutionally be taught in public schools"
teaching that a theory exists can only be called "imposing" a belief in it by the most hardened partisan
"If you truly believe atheism is a religious viewpoint then it is necessarily protected as a religion just like any other"
as a matter of fact, I do believe that
"The first amendment doesn't say you have freedom of religion for any religion other than atheism"
nor do I
"Clearly you do not believe it is a religion that is why you suggest it is not a protected freedom."
I never suggested that
"As to what the first amendment means, it is rather preposterous to suggest it means you can freely possess whatever religion you want but you are not free to reject all religions"
I never suggested that
"If one is free to reject any religion one does not believe in on what basis can you say one is not free to reject every religion?"
I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's clearly not anyone who ever posted a comment here
"No rational person thinks the founding fathers intended people to be free to chose a religion but that a person must chose one"
and being a rational person, I don't believe that and never said that
my interpretation is that Americans have a right to not choose a religion, as agnostics have, or choose one, as atheists have
"The state has not banned any "fact" or "theory" that supports religious viewpoints,"
actually, in the Dover case, it did just that
"it is neutral to them,"
it SHOULD BE neutral to them
"that is why such unsupported theories don't deserve to be included in science class and promoted without merit - that would be an establishment of a state religion"
actually, kids are taught theories without evidence in schools all the time
origin of life, origin of species, string theory...
ID, however, is supported by evidence
"Rick Perry is a scumbag. His attitude towards this is pervasive in all his actions as governer to the detriment of all Texans.
There was a prisoner on death row who was convicted on highly questionable arson theories. New science overturned the old beliefs the prisoner was convicted on and a scientific revue was to be tabled showing the prisoner was innocent and Perry refused to let it happen. He fired three board members and replaced them with his own cronies so they could rush the execution through before the new evidence could be looked at. To Rick Perry it was infinitely preferable to execute an innocent man than to admit his justice system had made a mistake. Once again, it was "Don't cloud my minds with the facts, we have to look infallible at all costs".
Rick Perry is the epitome of what's wrong with conservative Republicans. My heart sinks knowing evil men like him are in positions of power."
Priya, before we got onto other matters I meant to comment on this.
If true, I agree with you, except for the extrapolation to all conservatives. Do you have any references for this story?
Quite honestly, the blodthirstiness with which Texas executes people is a little scary. It's as if they think capital punishment is the antidote for everything that's wrong with the world. I never really liked Perry's predecessor because of similar stories.
From Dave Weigel comes the sad tale of Rep. Steve Southerland, a "tea party" freshman representing Florida's 2nd District. Southerland learned the hard way that being a congressman is not all fun and games. He barely earns enough to get by!
He said his $174,000 salary is not so much, considering the hours a member of the House puts in, and that he had to sever ties with his family business in Panama City. Southerland also said there are no instant pensions or free health insurance, as some of his constituents often ask him about in Congress.
Median income in Southerland's district: $34,718.
(And the health insurance isn't "free," but it is high-quality group private insurance with relatively cheap plans subsidized by Southerland's employer, the federal government. And he'll qualify for the pension in a couple of years, if he's reelected.)
He's also upset that he isn't allowed to run his family business while serving as a congressman. There was apparently an actual civics teacher in attendance, to laugh at him:
Marty Monroe, a "recovering civics teacher" visiting her parents at Westminster Oaks, was unsympathetic.
"Why didn't he know that going in, about conflicts of interests? Would you want members to be also running a business on the side?" Monroe said.
And finally, Southerland is upset that people want to hurt him:
"And by the way, did I mention? They're shooting at us. There is law-enforcement security in this room right now, and why is that?" Southerland told about 125 people in an auditorium at the Westminster Oaks retirement community.
This I do feel bad about. I mean, it must be awful to be surrounded by armed guards because a certain political movement whipped up a nationwide atmosphere of apocalyptic paranoia and deep loathing of the supposedly tyrannical federal government. I really wish we knew which political party had enabled and encouraged that sort of thing! I remember that whichever one it was had a lot of guns and enjoyed showing them off. (Was it the League of Women Voters?)
So, all in all, seems like this Southerland guy hates his stupid job, being a congressman.
Setup: "If you think this job pays too much, with those kinds of risks and cutting me off from my family business, I'll just tell you: This job don't mean that much to me. I had a good life in Panama City."
Punch line: "He's running for a second term"
"Do you have any references for this story?"
Here's a good place to start:
The Innocence Project: Cameron Todd Willingham: Wrongfully Convicted and Executed in Texas
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Cameron_Todd_Willingham_Wrongfully_Convicted_and_Executed_in_Texas.php
Anonymous said "Do you have any references for this story?
I think I may have seen this story on TV, I don't really remember where I heard the details I mentioned.
There's a brief mention of it here:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2011/08/23/perry-doesnt-care-about-innocence/
And here's what Wikipedia has to say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameron_Todd_Willingham
Anon, in suggesting that the teaching of evolution enshrines atheism (and thus,impliedly, is no less a violation of the First Amendment than teaching "intelligent design"), quotes the following as support for his/her suggestion:
*********************
Richard Dawkins:
"understanding evolution led me to atheism"
*********************
For others, however, understanding evolution makes it impossible to be an atheist. How could something so intricate, so complex be the product of utter randomness in the Universe?
The point here, however, is not where teaching scientific findings will lead people, with respect to religious doctrines. Rather, the point is that we should teach real science in our public schools. What, if any, conclusions people may draw from that information regarding religion and theology is their own business.
Science is in the business of explaining What happens and What will happen in the physical world. Religion and philosophy deal with the metaphysical questions of Why and to What Purpose. These are two very different spheres.
Learning about christianity led me to atheism. Therefore by bad anonymous's logic christianity supports atheism.
"The point here, however, is not where teaching scientific findings will lead people, with respect to religious doctrines. Rather, the point is that we should teach real science in our public schools. What, if any, conclusions people may draw from that information regarding religion and theology is their own business."
I agree with this, David.
Nasty Priya made the point that ID had to be kept out of school because it can be used to support theism.
I was simply pointing out that atheists point to evolution all the time to support their religious viewpoint but that doesn't mean we should not make students aware of the theory of evolution.
Evolution is a theory not based on controlled scientific theory but on observation of the natural world and ID has the same basis.
There's no reason not to make kids aware of both theories other than a desire to discourage a belief in theism.
I might point out that it is common in public school textbooks to extrapolate wildly from evolutionary theory to support atheism, saying that life developed spontaneously from a chemical soup or that new species arose from evolution or that complex bodily systems could possibly arise from natural selection. If students believe that any of this is the work of the Creator, the public schools falsely imply that there is empirical evidence this is not so. That's an attack on religion.
"Learning about christianity led me to atheism."
nasty Priya, if you think we weren't already aware that your religious viewpoint was based on a hatred of Christianity rather than a sober assessment of truth, you've deluded yourself
Bad anonymous said "you'd have no evidence supporting that but both evolution nad ID are plausible explanations for the oberved data".
You have no evidence supporting "intelligent design". The invisible Unicorn in my backyard farting species into existence is just as plausible an explanation for the evidence as "intelligent design" is.
I said "it is simply incorrect to say atheism is a viewpoint that involves belief in the supernatural"
Bad anonymous said "I didn't, I said it was a religious viewpoint- it posits a belief in something that has no proof: that there is no God".
A religious belief is not merely a belief in something for which there is no proof, its a belief in the supernatural. Atheism isn't a belief in something for which there is no proof, its the absense of a belief in something for which there's no proof. In either your erroneous defintion or my correct one atheism is not a religious belief.
Bad anonymous said "I'm sure if one would read through your quotes, you've said [evolution supports atheism] yourself.".
You often are sure about things where you are wrong. I've never said any such thing.
Bad anonymous said "the founding fathers would clearly oppose imposed atheism".
Of course they would have but no one has ever attempted to impose atheism in the States.
Bad anonymous said "teaching that a theory exists can only be called "imposing" a belief in it by the most hardened partisan".
For a hypothesis to be a theory it has to be well supported by the evidence, there is no evidence whatsoever supporting "intelligent design", that's why there's never been any peer-reviewed scientific papers on it. It is not a theory, but a religious belief therefore teaching it in school is imposing a religious belief on people and unconstitutional.
I said "Clearly you do not believe [atheism] is a religion that is why you suggest it is not a protected freedom."
Bad anonymous said "I never suggested that".
You most certainly did:
"atheism is a religious point of view and the state should make no law protecting its establishment".
I said "As to what the first amendment means, it is rather preposterous to suggest it means you can freely possess whatever religion you want but you are not free to reject all religions"
Bad anonymous said "I never suggested that".
Yes you did, see the previous quote of yours I listed.
I said "The state has not banned any "fact" or "theory" that supports religious viewpoints,"
Bad anonymous said "actually, in the Dover case, it did just that".
It did no such thing. It banned no facts and "intelligent design" is a religious belief and not a scientific theory so it has no place in the classroom.
"that is why such unsupported theories don't deserve to be included in science class and promoted without merit - that would be an establishment of a state religion"
Bad anonymous said "actually, kids are taught theories without evidence in schools all the time
origin of life, origin of species, string theory...".
There is evidence to support all those theories, in particular evolution which is accepted fact amongst virtually every scientist out there. The chemical theory of origin of life has been supported by experiments that show lighting in an atmosphere composed of elements in an ancient earth creates organic compounds. String theory is the least supported and most debated of these theories, but there is direct scientific evidence to support that as well - unlike your "intelligent design" which has no more evidence to support it than I have to support my theory that the invisible unicorn in my back yard farted every species into existence.
Bad anonymous said "if you think we weren't already aware that your religious viewpoint was based on a hatred of Christianity rather than a sober assessment of truth, you've deluded yourself."
Christianity is absurd, evil, and contradicts all the evidence we have for how the world works. Anyone who's taken a sober assessment of the truth is an atheist.
Priya Lynn writes:
"Christianity is absurd, evil, and contradicts all the evidence we have for how the world works. Anyone who's taken a sober assessment of the truth is an atheist."
I am not a Christian, but I think you may be falling into the trap set by allegedly fundamentalist Christians, whose brand of Christianty is narrow and hostile to science.
Christianity at its best (see, e.g., Dr. King, Rev. Joseph Lowry, Bishop Gene Robinson, Dorothea Day, Reinhold Neibhor, Pope John XXIII, the Quaker abolitionists, the United Church of Christ positions on sexual orientation)advances the humane, progressive values that you have discussed on this blog.
I can understand those whose conclude that they are atheists, even though I do not agree with their conclusion. But reasonable people can come to different conclusions on this subject. Christianity, like most religions, can be a force for good in the world -- or a force for oppression.
David, the idea behind christianity is basically the same idea that's behind a mafia protection racket - Jesus asks you to worship him and in turn he'll save you from the eternal torture he'll inflict on you if you don't worship him.
Priya Lynn,
That is certainly one way of looking at it. Turn the prism a bit, and we can see a different version.
David that kind of injustice is the foundation of christianity no matter how you turn the prism. One must close their eyes tightly, or never turn on one's brain to see it in a substantially different way.
Post a Comment
<< Home