What Google Can Teach Us About Us

Several months ago I was trying to learn more about what the Christian church has taught about war and peace. My research, of course, included several searches using some of my favorite search engines – including Google.

What immediately struck me was the suggestions that popped up when using Google. I took some screenshots and made a note to write this post.

Today I read an interesting post over at search engine land entitled Can Google Tell Us What Men and Women Are REALLY Thinking? and it made me want to dig out those screenshots.

Read more

January 20, 2010 | Filed Under Faith | Comments 

Jesus Junk – I don’t care if it’s illegal

An article I read in the USA Today last month reminded me of a topic I’ve wanted to write about for some time – the thriving business of spoofing corporate logos in the name of Christ. According to the article,

American retailers sell about $4.6 billion worth of Christian products annually, and some are spoofs or spinoffs of commercial logos or brand names. Many such goods are illegal, trademark attorneys say, but companies often are unaware their names are being copied or don’t put up a fight for fear of being labeled anti-faith.

The piece focuses mostly on the legal and ethical questions mentioned in that paragraph and these are legitimate concerns. I don’t think most of these products qualify as parody. They are almost certainly infringements of copyright and/or trademarks, but that is not what bothers me most about this stuff.
Read more

January 11, 2010 | Filed Under Faith | Comments 

Computer Prays for You

Information Age Prayer is a website that will say your prayers for you when you wake up late or simply forget to pray.

LiveScience reports that this service is available for only $4.95 per month and that this is not the first time there has been discussion of automated prayers.

Really?

July 20, 2009 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Daily Links

February 13, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Athletes and Faith

The NFL is a private organization and can essentially do what it wants, but some people have suggested that it doesn’t do enough to tone down the religious overtones.

This video implies that even the officials make judgement calls based on religious intent.

It’s also clear that athletes can make public statements of faith in cases where statements of another kind would not be tolerated. The recent discussions of Tim Tebow’s eyeblack demonstrates that not everyone is happy about this.

What do you think?

January 30, 2009 | Filed Under Faith, Fun | Comments 

Roe v. Wade

Two days ago marked the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I think it’s safe to say that no other Supreme Court ruling has spurred so many into active protest and support. Millions of people call themselves pro-choice and millions call themselves pro-life. Thousands march ever year in Washington in what they call the March for Life and thousands more march and act in support or protest of this ruling.

With the election of our new President, this ruling is again at the forefront of the minds of many. Barack Obama co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act and stated that he would sign it as his first act as President, which has millions of people furious and frustrated. I’ve read summaries of FOCA written by supporters and detractors, but I have not read the bill myself yet. As such, I cannot say that I support it. It seems to raise issues regarding states rights which complicate the matter in my mind. I will have to save that discussion for another day.

But on the matter of a woman’s right to choose, I’ve made up my mind. I can’t pretend that this issue doesn’t leave me conflicted, but I believe in freedom. I think abortion is a terrible thing and I’d like to see fewer abortions this year than there were last, but I have never believed it is an issue for government to decide. Those who march against the right to choose, like to talk about the “slippery slope.” I don’t see any other way to look at anti-abortion laws as dangerously slippery. Reproductive rights should be protected at all costs. Any government big enough to tell you that you cannot have an abortion is big enough to tell you that you must!

I know many would argue that the this right infringes on the rights of the unborn. I understand this argument, but I think this is similar to other judgement calls that need to be made in a free society. Stripping a woman’s right to choose places her freedom in the hands of government as well as others with a stake in the matter – parents, extended family, etc. This must be placed in balance against the rights of the unborn child. This is one of those issues that is a no-win situation. In many cases, a young woman is in grave danger when it becomes public that she is pregnant.

I don’t have the time to spell out all of my thoughts on this controversial and complicated subject. This is a heated debate and I don’t want to inflame the emotions of those with whom I disagree. Along with my thoughts on FOCA, I will have to make time to write at length about this issue, but on this day close to the anniversary of Roe v. Wade I wanted to make two of my opinions clear.

One, I am pro-choice. I strongly support the right of a woman to decide what happens in the matter of her own pregnancy.

Two, I am pro-life. I strongly believe that abortion is always a bad decision. I would argue that even in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother – abortion is not a good solution. It is a terrible thing.

So, how do I reconcile these disparate views? I remind myself that this discussion takes place on two levels – personal and societal. On a personal level, I believe abortion is wrong. I don’t want to see any woman have an abortion. I’d like to say that I have enough respect for others to allow them to make this choice without judgement from me, but on the issue I strongly disagree. On a societal level, the issue is different. It is not whether abortion is a bad thing, it is whether any society has the right to force a life-changing choice on an individual.

January 24, 2009 | Filed Under Faith, Family, Freedom | Comments 

Daily Links

January 22, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Daily Links

January 21, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

A Freedom Fighter and An Extremist – Thank God!

Today we celebrate the life of one of my heroes – the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In his memory, the family and I listened to his most famous speech and I re-read his masterful writing in Letter from a Birmingham Jail. After reading this again, I’ve decided there is a lot I want to say about Dr. King. Perhaps I will write more on the anniversary of his death or next year on this holiday, but today I wanted to defend his reputation as an American and Christian. Bear with me – I am going to get there the long way today.

Like millions of Americans, I have looked forward to January 20, 2009 for quite some time – since the last inauguration in fact. My anticipation grew stronger as I came to believe in a new candidate. I plan to write more on Wednesday next week about why I decided to vote and campaign for Barack Obama, but I will admit now that his race was a factor. I would never have voted for him simply because he would become our first African American President, but there is no doubt that I was (and am) caught up in his proposal for change and the fact that he is different is exciting to me.

Though race was a factor for me, I did not fully comprehend how enormous an event this would be until election night. I’ll never forget that evening. The whole family was excited, we made O shaped food, put on our T-shirts and sat down to celebrate change. As we watched the coverage, it became clear to all of us that this was indeed an historic event. An African American man would become our next President and the face of our nation. I was still excited about the real policy changes that I believe Barack Obama might bring to our nation, but now I was excited about something more. We could no longer say that all of our presidents were rich, white men.

As the inauguration approached and I realized that it would fall on the day after a day we set aside to celebrate the life of one of my heroes, I grew even more excited. This would be a true celebration of progress in America. Obviously we have not arrived, but we have clearly made progress. And this brings me to what I really wanted to talk about …

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. has long been one of my heroes. I remember reading about him and his work in elementary school. I attended an elementary school with a student population that was at least 50% African American in a the “white section” of a city with terrible public schools. At one point, four of the schools in our city were among the ten worst schools in New Jersey. Living among, attending school with, and playing with children of color was simply part of my life. It did not occur to me until later that the state of our school system might somehow be related to the race of many of the children in our city. My parents never spoke ill of anyone based on race. They, like many of that generation, had stereotypes to overcome but they never spread bigotry or fear – for that I am very grateful. I feel as though I grew up in an environment where I could learn to understand people’s differences and embrace them.

I can only remember one serious classroom discussion about race – in fourth grade (1976-77). While reading about Dr. King, we read that people of color used to be referred to as “colored,” negroes, or worse. In my time, it was becoming more common to call them “black” and we discussed this in the classroom. I’ll never forget my teacher calling on each of my black classmates so that they could tell us what they thought. It was clearly embarrassing to them. One girl said “I don’t care, you can call me purple if you want to!” It may have been my first glimpse into the bias of a white adult in my life. I couldn’t believe that less than 15 years before African Americans had been treated so poorly, and now it seemed my teacher did not have any sensitivity to it – or didn’t know how to show it. (In the interest of full disclosure, this was – by a long shot – the worst teacher I’d ever had. She was mean and vindictive to all students. I’m not saying that to explain away her actions in this situation – I would eventually meet other adults who were outright bigots.)

As we continued to learn about Dr. King, I was mesmerized by his willingness to break the law in support of freedom. Even at a young age, I was a lover of freedom and these stories were my favorites – stories of those who stood up to the establishment. I would not understand until high school what I admired about Dr. King, Ghandi, Rosa Parks. It was the willingness they showed to disobey unjust laws and to put up with the punishment for disobedience. As a teenager, I realized that there were examples of this in Scripture – Daniel, who prayed in public when he knew it was against the law; Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, who refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s idol; and others.

When I finished elementary school after sixth grade, my parents enrolled me in a private Christian school where I would attend until I graduated in 1985. To this day, I believe this school prepared me to be the thoughtful, truth-seeking individual I am. I am a better person for having attended, but there are things about that place that sadden me. One is that they teach students that the universe is less than 10,000 years old when it is a matter of virtual certainty that it is at least 12,000,000,000 years old, but that is a topic for another day. :) The other is that everything we learned about the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King was tainted by insinuations that he was a communist. This was the early 1980s, so we thought any communist was as evil as Satan himself. We were NOT taught Dr. King was a communist, but nothing was done to defend him from those rumors. It was defamation by omission and I am ashamed to have been a part of it.

I am grown now and I’ve read Dr. Kings works myself and listened to his speeches. I am certain he was not a perfect man. I am also certain that perhaps someone has evidence of some wrongdoing committed by Dr. King. None of that matters to me. So many of us live our lives and contribute nothing to our fellow man outside of criticism of someone else’s life and work. Dr. King dedicated his adult life to standing up for others and preaching Scripture.

His Letter from a Birmingham Jail is filled with quotes I will write about at a later date – quotes about extremism, unjust laws, etc. Today, I want to reflect on what he said about the church. It seems an appropriate ending to my thoughts today.

If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws.

And I have watched many churches commit themselves to a completely other worldly religion which makes a strange, un-Biblical distinction between body and soul, between the sacred and the secular.

If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century.

I simply don’t understand how someone can honestly read his writings and listen to his speeches without a real reverence for his work and ministry while on this earth.

January 19, 2009 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Daily Links

January 18, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Daily Links

January 14, 2009 | Filed Under Links | Comments 

Virtual Talmud: Rick Warren’s Mega-Synagogue

I am a little confused by Rick Warren’s involvement in growing Mega-Synagogues. Not sure what to think actually.

The idea of mega-synagogues with yoga workshops, banjo-playing Jewish rock stars leading mussaf service, and Rick Warren-styled rabbis preaching to 10,000 overworked, overeducated, and over-purpose-driven Jews would sure be a sight to see.Virtual Talmud: Rick Warren’s Mega-Synagogue

April 18, 2006 | Filed Under Faith | Comments Off 

Religion and Politics

Should churches discipline members because of their politics?Actually, I am inclined to agree with Albert Mohler on this. Churches probably should draw the lines in extreme cases like with Hitler.Of course, we all know Hitler was more like a republican than a democrat.Interesting.

November 13, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Richard Dawkins

I remember seeing this debate on PBS in 1997. I taped it and watched it with my students. Mr. William F. Buckley, Mr. Philip Johnson, Dr. Micheal Behe, and Dr. David Berlinski argued that schools should point out that Darwinian evolution is not the only plausible theory for explaining the origin of life. We enjoyed the debate, but decided the solution was not clear. It is obvious to me that Darwinian evolution does a poor job of explaining the origin of life, but whether public school should present ‘alternate’ theories is not clear to me.One of my favorite parts of the debate was when a presenter from the con side began to confront Mr. Johnson about books written by ICR. In either case, Mr. Johnson was noticeably conflicted. No doubt, he wanted to distance himself from a radical ‘creationist’ organization without compromising his strong faith. When challenged to respond to questions on the ’silliness’ of books depicting dinosaurs roaming the earth with men, he finally responded by saying

It is silly. Just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins.

Saying this turned the tables. It was evident that the con side wanted to treat Dawkins just as the pro side wanted to treat organizations like ICR.This is the light in which I’ve always seen Dawkins. He can resort to philosophical games regarding the ‘problems’ with Darwinism. He can talk in terms of generalizations. Why? He doesn’t have to worry about the science. He is not a scientist. He can spout generalizations and grandiose verbiage. No need to support it with facts. I’ve read Dawkins’ books and I enjoyed them, but I see him for what he is. He is a militant atheist who believes he has found in Darwinism a tool which he can use to demolish theism. He is not a scientist. He writes popular books in order to persuade his readers that Darwinism can be applied to other areas of life.Albert Mohler correctly points out that Dawkins has is a committed atheist with an aggressive and undisguised secularism, but misses the point that this irrational behavior stems from his mixture of science and philosophy. I pray that proponents of Intelligent Design do not become known for the same.

October 29, 2005 | Filed Under Faith | Comments 

Vikings and Boats

Frankly, this kind of thing doesn’t surprise me. I know it should, but it doesn’t.I saw a report on ESPN that these guys believe they need to get out there and win. They believe that is the only way to redeem themselves. You know the sad thing is that they are right. People will forgive them as long as they win.Vikings Face Boat-Load of New ProblemsSome people never learn.

October 21, 2005 | Filed Under Faith | Comments 

TomPaine.com – Caring For Creation

TomPaine.com – Caring For Creation

October 17, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Christian Conservative

Late in July, I caught this post at Christian Conservative. My first reaction was anger. I thought it was inappropriate and very much out of context. My plan was to re-read and thoughfully mark it up with comments, but when I returned to it I was upset once again.Now that I return to my blog after a brief vacation, I would like to get this finished. Problem is – I no longer feel like expending the effort. I read through it again, but all I have to say is the obvious. President Truman’s comments were not in reference to our current war and I find it disrespectful to presume what Truman would say about this ‘war.’One of the comments to this post is worth quoting too:

For now, I’ll just point out that Harry Truman was the originator of the phrase “The Buck stops here.”So there’s no way I see him allowing people as genuinely and arrogantly incompetent as Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al, bungle something as important as managing a conquered country.– jim b

BTW, does anyone else think that asking if Truman would approve of dropping bombs is begging the question.

October 8, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Intelligent Design

President Bush has been in the news lately for making these comments about the teaching of intelligent design in public school:

I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I’m not suggesting — you’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes.
transcript

Of course people are talking, but what are they saying?

William A. Dembski thinks the president should be commended for his courage, wisdom and foresight. I disagree, but Mr. Dembski does point out an important distinction between intelligent design and creationism.

…intelligent design should be understood as the evidence that God has placed in nature to show that the physical world is the product of intelligence and not simply the result of mindless material forces. This evidence is available to all apart from the special revelation of God in salvation history as recounted in Scripture.

Creationism, by contrast, takes a particular interpretation of Genesis (namely, it interprets the days of creation as six consecutive twenty-four-hour days occurring roughly 6,000 years ago) and then tries to harmonize science with this interpretation.
Why President Bush Got It Right about Intelligent Design

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Bush’s comments “irresponsible.” He said the president, by suggesting that students hear two viewpoints,

“doesn’t understand that one is a religious viewpoint and one is a scientific viewpoint.” Lynn said Bush showed a “low level of understanding of science,” adding that he worries that Bush’s comments could be followed by a directive to the Justice Department to support legal efforts to change curricula.
Bush Remarks On ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory Fuel Debate

Woah, settle down! A directive to the Justice Departmennt? Don Singleton’s thoughts, while not directed at Mr. Lynn, would be an appropriate response to this kind of alarmist reaction.

… and remember, this is not a New Initiative the White House decided to lauch, he was just answering a reporters question. And I guess the press stupidly hoped he would say something they could use against those who want Intelligent Design taught.
Designing an Intelligent Debate

Charles Krauthammer had this to say about President Bush’s comments:

To teach faith as science is to undermine the very idea of science, which is the acquisition of new knowledge through hypothesis, experimentation and evidence. To teach it as science is to encourage the supercilious caricature of America as a nation in the thrall of religious authority. To teach it as science is to discredit the welcome recent advances in permitting the public expression of religion. Faith can and should be proclaimed from every mountaintop and city square. But it has no place in science class. To impose it on the teaching of evolution is not just to invite ridicule but to earn it.
Let’s Have No More Monkey Trials

Very well said Mr. Krauthammer (as usual), I could not agree more. I’m a bit confused, though. Does President Bush support the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific theory? I’m not sure his response indicates that.

And Albert Mohler had this to say about Krauthammer’s comments:

Strangely, Krauthammer seems to believe that ’science’ is independent of any prior worldview. This usually clear-headed columnist needs to think this issue through again. Every worldview includes a religious element — faith in some reality, idea, or deity. The naturalistic or materialistic worldview is just as religious as Christianity. There is no way to separate science from the larger worldview or from prior intellectual commitments.
Intelligent Design in the News Again

I’m confused again. Science is independent of a prior worldview. I concede that there are people whose worldview is based on materialism or naturalism, but this is not the same as saying that ’science’ is a worldview. Science is a method of learning based on the scientific method. People of all worldviews may participate in this pursuit. Certainly a persons worldview may taint the quality of a hypothesis, but the beauty of the scientific method is that this hypothesis will be tested!

Ron Hutcheson adds this:

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted,” the academy said in a 1999 assessment. “Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
Bush Endorses Teaching ‘Intelligent Design’ Theory in Schools

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t see how everyone is making the jump to teaching these things in the science classroom. If President Bush is referring to teaching these concepts in a science classroom, then I agree with this and some of the other comments here, but I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The NSTA issued this statement:

The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms.

“We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom,” said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

On Monday, Knight Ridder news service reported that the President favors the teaching of intelligent design “so people can understand what the debate is about.”

“It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom,” said NSTA President Mike Padilla. “Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students’ knowledge of the natural world.”

NSTA strongly supports the premise that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 education frameworks and curricula. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other scientific and educational organizations.

NSTA is “stunned and disappointed”

Intelligent design is not science. Agreed, but again this statement is addressing the ’science classroom.’ Is there a place for this discussion in other classes?

An open letter to President Bush by Prof. Robert P. Kirshner:

As President of the American Astronomical Society, I was very disappointed by the comments attributed to you in an article inthe August 2nd, 2005 Washington Post regarding intelligent design. While we agree that “part of education is to exposepeople to different schools of thought”, intelligent design has neither scientific evidence to support it nor an educational basis for teaching it as science. Your science adviser, John H Marburger III correctly commented that “intelligent design is not a scientific concept.”
Open Letter to President Bush

Okay, so we are all in agreement. Maybe it should be presented, but not in a science class. Sounds good to me.

If some public school teachers are using evolution as a vehicle for atheist propaganda, that’s outrageous, and a proper matter for school boards to deal with. If schools want to offer classes on religion and philosophy that explain religious views of the origins of life, fine. But to make science classrooms a platform for a pseudoscience whose sole intent is to counter ”godless” natural selection is a travesty of both science and faith. And this effort may well alienate many scientifically literate people from the Republican Party and conservatism, making the caricature of evolution as left-wing dogma a self-fulfilling prophecy.
God vs. Darwin: no contest

Right! It’s not science, but schools certainly have a right to offer opposing viewpoints. Couldn’t have said it better myself! :)

More …

Don Singleton adds this:

One could also teach Evolution from an Intelligent Design perspective, acknowledging the fact that a Supreme Being was involved, but that adaptation and evolution were tools He used.

Designing an Intelligent Debate

Of course one could. Perhaps this is why the NABT no longer uses the word ‘unguided’ in its description of evolution:

The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of biological evolution—an unpredictable and natural process of descent with modification that is affected by natural selection, mutation, genetic drift, migration and other natural biological and geological forces.
NABT’s Statement on Teaching Evolution

An editorial from the LA Times reminds us that President Bush is not the only person to think this way:

Bush is far from alone. In 1999, soon after Bush said “both [creationism and evolution] ought to be taught,” Vice President Al Gore said through a spokesman that schools should teach evolution but local boards “should be free to teach creationism as well.” Gore backtracked, but he deserved all the scorn aimed his way by scientists and teachers.
Faith vs. evidence

As usual,
Phillip Greenspun’s thoughts were far less compelling than the
his readers thoughts (I liked this one).

“Interesting” Comments

One writer inexplicably quotes from the Creation Science Association for Mid-America.

CSA believes that “Revelation” trumps “scientific pursuits,” Genesis is the “written Word of God,” and therefore, the world was made in six days. To protect its belief in a young earth, CSA has to argue that “fossilization does not and cannot require a long time,” the Grand Canyon could have been formed “in hours or days,” and “dinosaurs lived very recently and coexisted with man.”
Bush advocates Intelligent Design curriculum

A quick review of the CSAMA site will reveal that the theydoes not even support “The Intelligent Design Movement” and don’t think much of one of its strongest supporters.

orangeclouds115 at livejournal explains intelligent design:

… the dominant current challenger to evolution in education is intelligent design, which asserts that there is a scientific argument that some complexities of nature, unexplained by Darwin’s theory, cannot be the result of random mutation, but must be the work of an unnamed intelligence. Some critics call it “creationism lite.”
Dinosaur Museum Shows Dinos Sharing Eden With Adam and Eve

Creationism Lite. I love it!

A cynical writer states:

The sole purpose of “Intelligent Design” is to make creationism look like a scientifically credible theory, so that it can be perpetuated in public schools, among other places. Intelligent Design, however, is not supported by scientific evidence, and is invalid as a scientific theory.
The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design (Op-Ed)

Another good one:

I believe we should base all our conclusions on solid logic, which the opponents to God and “Intelligent Design” falsely claim to do; they usually do not have the faintest idea of what they are talking about, and have not studied anything, but simply want to fight and oppose. You can figure where that draws its power and origin from . the Opposer/Satan.
blitzer from 100777.com

Well, where do I begin? Evolutionists “usually do not have the faintest idea,” they “have not studied anything,” yet they claim to base all their conclusions on logic. We “should base all our conclusions on solid logic?” No, we shouldn’t, and as far as I can tell there is no evidence for stating that most “opposers to God” claim to do that. Science and logic are no the same thing!

More Posts You Should Read

What is ID?

Source

This is where I intended to give credit to the Boston Globe for bringing this news to my attention. Unfortunately, they require you register to read the story. I will link to it anyway, but I wouldn’t register. I’m sure you can find the story referenced elswhere. :)

August 10, 2005 | Filed Under Fun | Comments 

Am I the only one?

Just finished watching a piece on ABC’s NightLine about lobbyists Jack Abramoff and Michael Scanlone. Abramoff was paid millions of dollars by one native american tribe to protect its interests in DC. He used some of that money to hire Ralph Reed to stop a native american casino in Texas. Then when the casino was shut down, he moves in at the last minute to offer his ’services’ to them.Am I the only one who thinks this a classic technique of organized crime? This is despicable.Follow the story at Indianz.com

June 22, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Aplogies for Michael Schiavo

I’v seen a few posts, including this one, regarding the results of Terri Schiavo’s autopsy and the appropriateness of an apology to her husband.This was a sensitive issue and I don’t pretend to know what the right things to do and say are, BUT I think many people owe this man an apology regardless of what the autopsy ‘proves.’Am I the only one to think this way?

June 19, 2005 | Filed Under Faith, Freedom | Comments 

Next Page →