matt you tell me something atheists aren't legally allowed to do that xians are allowed to do in america and i'll tell you something gays aren't legally allowed to do in america but straights are. let's see who runs out first.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 00:58 (fifteen years ago)
It IS fucked up that the only way for an atheist to become a part of government is to lie about themselves.
There are plenty of local and congressional races in which religion doesn't come up at all. I don't see this as an ethical compromise.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 00:59 (fifteen years ago)
"no one's losing their job or getting spit on in public for not believing in god"
ORLY? http://democracyforamerica.com/blog_posts/27752-texas-teacher-suspended-for-being-liberal-and-an-atheist
So we've got s sample size of two: Alfred and this dude. Text to vote!
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
My mom is more aggrieved by my homosexuality than my atheism, and no doubt wishes I would recant both, but no way are the two comparable!
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 12:58 AM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark
my point was when it comes to getting elected to congress, they are totally comparable (Barney Frank being a notable exception).
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
like i'm honestly v sorry if ppl have been cruel to you because you're an atheist, but to suggest that it's some kind of social impediment in the larger sense is just wildly off-base
xp balls otm
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:00 (fifteen years ago)
no offense, Phil, but that's a blog post by a guy with an interest in the case.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:01 (fifteen years ago)
like i'm honestly v sorry if ppl have been cruel to you because you're an atheist, but to suggest that it's some kind of social impediment in the larger sense is just wildly off-base― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:00 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
How could it not be a social impediment if I have to lie about it in order to be elected to Congress?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:02 (fifteen years ago)
it is amazing how our prisons are overcrowded w/ young atheist men. and don't get me started on arizona.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:03 (fifteen years ago)
i dont really care if atheists are discriminated against because theyre so annoying
― ☂ (max), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:03 (fifteen years ago)
Blame if you wish the puerility of my belief system, but winking at your would-be constituents about your faith is as innocuous as bringing your wife and children onstage to adduce your commitment to Family Values.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:03 (fifteen years ago)
matt do you feel sexters are as prosecuted a minority as gays also?
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
yeah, i'm with gbx here. i just don't feel the boot of oppression.
if you've run in and lost a political race due to your atheism, that's one thing. if you feel oppressed on principle because lots of people supposedly wouldn't vote for an atheist presidential candidate, then i think you're making a mountain of a molehill.
personally, i feel that atheism has been slowly becoming more acceptable for over a hundred years, and that this normalizing process is basically inevitable. though i don't expect to see an open atheist running this country during my lifetime, i'm pretty confident about the long-term trends.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
lol phil do you think republicans want to defund the epa cuz of jesus???? really?
Uh . . . yes? I mean I'm sorry if you're too uninformed to have heard of this guy or this guy, for example. But I hope your lolz keep you warm at night.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:04 (fifteen years ago)
also atheists are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is
― ☂ (max), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:05 (fifteen years ago)
p much
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:06 (fifteen years ago)
also atheists homosexuals are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
Yep. It's like the acceptance of gay marriage. The point of interest isn't where "the numbers" are now: it's the trend, which is up and up.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
those guys do totally set the agenda for the gop. silly old me for thinking it had something to do w/ 'smaller govt' and 'if i can make a buck from something why should i give a fuck about everyone else', it's clearly totally cuz the whole 'god gave man dominion over the earth so fuck off'. does explain why romney and pawlenty have been tussling for that all important shimkus endorsement.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:08 (fifteen years ago)
― balls, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 9:03 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark
lol
― ( . __ . ) . o O ( cum ) (Princess TamTam), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:11 (fifteen years ago)
― balls, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:08 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark
It would be easier to fight climate change if, for example, people didn't think that Global Warming was impossible because only God can change the climate.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:12 (fifteen years ago)
does explain why romney and pawlenty have been tussling for that all important shimkus endorsement.
Uh, the point is that someone that would say something so mind-numbingly stupid is given the chairmanship of the committee responsible for environmental protection, whereas someone saying they don't believe in god at all is excluded from public life completely. Eyes on the prize here, folks.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:14 (fifteen years ago)
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:04 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
that unprincipled people exist and will sometimes (often) gain political power is a given. religious people (numerically dominant in the USA) feel more comfortable electing openly religious leaders, and that, too, stands to reason.
result of the two is that sometimes the ostensibly "religious" leaders we electe will irresponsible, duplicitious assholes. this doesn't make me feel oppressed as an atheist, but it does incline me to work on behalf of principled candidates of whatever faith.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
i could be wrong (and hopefully will be) but i don't see 'acceptance' of atheism accelerating nearly as quickly as gay marriage. i do agree the trend is up though.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:16 (fifteen years ago)
Does this count as actual discrimination?
Here's an example that I think is particular egregious: The discrimination in favor of religious parents and against irreligious ones, or in favor of more religious parents and against less religious ones, in child custody cases, on the theory that it's in the child's "best interests" (that's the relevant legal test) to be raised with a religious education.Mississippi is the most serious offender, though I've seen cases since 1990 in Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas; there are similar cases in 1970s Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New York. (I give cites below.) In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better "future religious example." In 2000, it ordered a father to take the child to church each week, as a Mississippi court ordered in 2000, reasoning that "it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training."This violates the Free Speech Clause: Just as government discrimination against religious viewpoints is unconstitutional, see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector, so government discrimination against nonreligious viewpoints is unconstitutional. It violates the Establishment Clause: It coerces religious practice, either directly by ordering a parent to take the child to church, or indirectly by threatening the parent with a diminution in legal rights if he doesn't practice religion; the Court has rightly and unanimously taken the view that legal coercion of religious practice is unconstitutional (see both the majority and the dissent in Lee v. Weisman). It endorses religion (though the prohibition on endorsement is more controversial than the prohibition on coercion). And it discriminates based on religiosity. It may also violate the Free Exercise Clause, if (as I think is the case) the "free exercise of religion" includes the freedom not to have one's rights reduced because one exercises religion solitarily rather than in church, exercises religion less actively and passionately than some others, or has no religion at all. (The freedom of speech has been understood as including the freedom to choose what not to say as well as what to say; it seems to me the same applies to free exercise of religion.)Finally, I realize that some people think it's in a child's best interests to be raised in a religion, perhaps because it will be more likely to make the child feel deeply about the need to follow some moral code. For all I know, this might be true. But other people equally think it's in a child's best interests to be raised skeptical of all religions, because it will be more likely to make the child into a rational thinker who doesn't take factual assertions on faith, and refuses to believe such assertions (whether about the Virgin Birth or the parting of the Red Sea or the creation of the world by an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God) unless he's given solid evidence that they're true. Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, means that the government shouldn't make custody decisions based on such assumptions -- and of course if it can make custody decisions based on anti-atheist assumptions, it can also make them (and has made them) based on antireligious assumptions.* * *Citations for discrimination against the irreligious or less religious: Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001); Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.); Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002); Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000); Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003); McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000); Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966); Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996); Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999); Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005); Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992); Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.); Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.); Jonhston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.); In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000); Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999); Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996); Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977); Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990); Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992); In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000); Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); In re Marriage of Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974); Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978); Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977); Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977).
Mississippi is the most serious offender, though I've seen cases since 1990 in Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas; there are similar cases in 1970s Iowa, Nebraska, North Carolina, and New York. (I give cites below.) In 2001, for instance, the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld an order giving a mother custody partly because she took the child to church more often than the father did, thus providing a better "future religious example." In 2000, it ordered a father to take the child to church each week, as a Mississippi court ordered in 2000, reasoning that "it is certainly to the best interests of [the child] to receive regular and systematic spiritual training."
This violates the Free Speech Clause: Just as government discrimination against religious viewpoints is unconstitutional, see, e.g., Rosenberger v. Rector, so government discrimination against nonreligious viewpoints is unconstitutional. It violates the Establishment Clause: It coerces religious practice, either directly by ordering a parent to take the child to church, or indirectly by threatening the parent with a diminution in legal rights if he doesn't practice religion; the Court has rightly and unanimously taken the view that legal coercion of religious practice is unconstitutional (see both the majority and the dissent in Lee v. Weisman). It endorses religion (though the prohibition on endorsement is more controversial than the prohibition on coercion). And it discriminates based on religiosity. It may also violate the Free Exercise Clause, if (as I think is the case) the "free exercise of religion" includes the freedom not to have one's rights reduced because one exercises religion solitarily rather than in church, exercises religion less actively and passionately than some others, or has no religion at all. (The freedom of speech has been understood as including the freedom to choose what not to say as well as what to say; it seems to me the same applies to free exercise of religion.)
Finally, I realize that some people think it's in a child's best interests to be raised in a religion, perhaps because it will be more likely to make the child feel deeply about the need to follow some moral code. For all I know, this might be true. But other people equally think it's in a child's best interests to be raised skeptical of all religions, because it will be more likely to make the child into a rational thinker who doesn't take factual assertions on faith, and refuses to believe such assertions (whether about the Virgin Birth or the parting of the Red Sea or the creation of the world by an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God) unless he's given solid evidence that they're true. Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, means that the government shouldn't make custody decisions based on such assumptions -- and of course if it can make custody decisions based on anti-atheist assumptions, it can also make them (and has made them) based on antireligious assumptions.
* * *Citations for discrimination against the irreligious or less religious: Blevins v. Bardwell, 784 So. 2d 166, 175 (Miss. 2001); Staggs v. Staggs, 2005 WL 1384525 (Miss. App.); Brekeen v. Brekeen, 880 So. 2d 280, 282 (Miss. 2004); Turner v. Turner, 824 So. 2d 652, 655-56 (Miss. App. 2002); Pacheco v. Pacheco, 770 So. 2d 1007, 1011 (Miss. App. 2000); Weigand v. Houghton, 730 So.2d 581 (Miss. 1999); Johnson v. Gray, 859 So. 2d 1006, 1014-15 (Miss. 2003); McLemore v. McLemore, 762 So. 2d 316 (Miss. 2000); Hodge v. Hodge, 188 So. 2d 240 (Miss. 1966); Johns v. Johns, 918 S.W.2d 728 (Ark. App. 1996); Ark. Sup. Ct. admin. order no. 15 (enacted 1999); Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So.2d 506, 513-14 (La. App. 2005); Pahal v. Pahal, 606 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (La. App. 1992); Ulvund v. Ulvund, 2000 WL 33407372 (Mich. App.); Mackenzie v. Cram, 1998 WL 1991050 (Mich. App.); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 1996 WL 33347958 (Mich. App.); Jonhston v. Plessel, 2004 WL 384143 (Minn. Ct. App.); In re Storlein, 386 N.W.2d 812 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); McAlister v. McAlister, 747 A.2d 390, 393 (Pa. Super. 2000); Thomas v. Thomas, 739 A.2d 206, 213 (Pa. Super. 1999); Gancas v. Schultz, 683 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Super. 1996); Scheeler v. Rudy, 2 Pa. D. & C. 3d 772, 780 (Com. Pl. 1977); Shainwald v. Shainwald, 395 S.E.2d 441, 446 (S.C. App. 1990); Hulm v. Hulm, 484 N.W.2d 303, 305 & n.* (S.D. 1992); In re Davis, 30 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. Ct. App. 2000); Snider v. Grey, 688 S.W.2d 602, 611 (Tex. Ct. App. 1985); In re F.J.K., 608 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. Ct. App. 1980); In re Marriage of Moorhead, 224 N.W.2d 242, 244 (Iowa 1974); Ahlman v. Ahlman, 267 N.W.2d 521, 523 (Neb. 1978); Dean v. Dean, 232 S.E.2d 470, 471-72 (N.C. App. 1977); Robert O. v. Judy E., 90 Misc.2d 439, 442 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1977).
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:19 (fifteen years ago)
xp that unprincipled people exist and will sometimes (often) gain political power is a given.
Wait, wait, what exactly characterizes Shimkus and Beard as "unprincipled?" Seems to me they have some rather strongly-held principles.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:20 (fifteen years ago)
homosexuals are more likely to be male, white, and highly educated, so id say theyre doing pretty well as is
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 9:08 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink
this is not.... true
― ☂ (max), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:20 (fifteen years ago)
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:12 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
oh sure. but you're missing the forest for the trees. "only god can change the climate" is a ruse, a transparent manipulation. though it might well convince the faithful, it's not an important component of any religious culture's core beliefs. this is an argument that's being promoted not for religious, but for political and economic reasons.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:21 (fifteen years ago)
As a homo and an atheist, I belong to two pitiable minorities, but neither my family nor my legislature have shunned me for the latter.
i'm the latter, not the former, and i've given up trying to convince my dad that either is true
― ♪♫ hey there lamp post, feelin' whiney ♪♫ (darraghmac), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
what exactly characterizes Shimkus and Beard as "unprincipled?" Seems to me they have some rather strongly-held principles.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:20 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark
i do not believe that these arguments are motivated in any way by religious faith. they reflect political affiliation to wealth, and nothing but that.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:22 (fifteen years ago)
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:19 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
sure. i hope no one here is saying that discrimination against atheists flat-out doesn't exist. but as an atheist (of sorts), it's very low on my list of concerns.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
custody disputes (some dating to the 1970s) vs. matthew shepard. or brisenia flores. or amadou diallo. hmm. too close to call.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:24 (fifteen years ago)
dude. No one's saying that atheists are more oppressed than other groups. Quit trying to frame this argument that way.
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:26 (fifteen years ago)
I call a ten-yard penalty for mindreading and a replay of the down. Those things wouldn't even place in the top ten of actually silly things that actual Christians I know really believe, and despite how convenient it would be politically, I have no reason to think that they don't seriously believe them.
i hope no one here is saying that discrimination against atheists flat-out doesn't exist.
Uhhhhhhh . . .
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:27 (fifteen years ago)
OK: atheists are AS oppressed as other groups. And that's wrong.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:27 (fifteen years ago)
― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:22 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
A bit convenient to take this view, it seems. Surely you must concede that a lot of horrible ideas and actions are motivated mostly by religious faith?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:28 (fifteen years ago)
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:27 AM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark
No one said that either.
The question was the degree to which they are despised.
Yeah losing custody of your kids is no big whoop amirite? Any of the resident parents wanna weigh in here?
Next I'll start compiling the ones about people run out of town on a rail because they requested that there not be an "in the name of Jesus Christ we pray" at the high school commencement. But that's cool, too. They probably should've just shut up.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
Oh I don't care about odium. I care about political exile.
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:30 (fifteen years ago)
Surely you must concede that a lot of horrible ideas and actions are motivated mostly by religious faith?
― Matt Armstrong, Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:28 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
yeah, sure. but in american politics, faith is almost always a tool used by wealthy interests to feign identification with large groups of people whose interests are different (i.e., the not-wealthy, those whose real best interests are actually diametrically opposed).
my personal version of occam's razor insists that when it comes to questions like global warming (i.e., to what extent should corporate activity be regulated), the big loud stick may be religious principle, but the hidden carrot is always money.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:35 (fifteen years ago)
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Wednesday, June 1, 2011 6:30 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark
for a despised and grievously oppressed minority, atheists seem to have been extremely successful in promoting their agenda, especially when it comes to things like prayer in schools. for the most part, this issue reassures me that atheists are making good progress.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:39 (fifteen years ago)
I do think I want to start going by the Balls Test, wherein discrimination doesn't officially count, no matter how pernicious, institutionalized or legally sanctioned, unless someone was killed in a way that makes the national news.
xp right, preventing government-led prayer in school is part of the "atheist agenda" and not, you know, the First Amendment. Cripes.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:42 (fifteen years ago)
I mean the fact that in 2011 we still have cases where students are punished for not saying the Pledge of Allegiance and where students who protest school-led graduation prayers or prayers at football games are ostracized and humiliated leads me to think that things are not as rosy as you believe.
― Shart Shaped Box (Phil D.), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:44 (fifteen years ago)
― contenderizer, Thursday, June 2, 2011 1:39 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark
Huh? Basically the only hope of atheists w/r/t things like school prayer has been the courts (and the first amendment.) As far as winning that battle politically or socially, I don't see what you're talking about.
If we were making substantial progress, would Bush have had his faith-based initiatives? Would the WH prayer breakfast have become an institution?
― Matt Armstrong, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
the Balls Test,
all balls no cock
― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
xp In the case of corporate regulation, the article of faith is pure free market ascendency and the worship of laissez faire capitalism, not any biblically based commandments.
In the case of global warming resistance, there are some religious dimensions to the arguments floated about, but those are mostly floated by evangelicals who expect the Judgment Day in at most a few more years. The main resistance comes from believers in the rugged individualist mythos, summed up as that "the government can't tell me not to burn fossil fuels if I want to burn them. It's a free country!"
― Aimless, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:45 (fifteen years ago)
well, you brought up the prayer in schools thing, not i. so you can't "cripes" too hard. point being that we now more clearly enforce the separation between church and state than we have in the past. i.e., forces of enlightenment ascendent, etc.
― contenderizer, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:47 (fifteen years ago)
that went to phil.
the main ~popular~ resistance
the actual resistance in the "halls of power" is from parties that stand to gain financially from ignoring climate change
xp
― cop a cute abdomen (gbx), Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:48 (fifteen years ago)
i'll go by the phil test and tell myself that as a godless scientist living in THE SOUTH, less than a block from a catholic church, a block from a baptist church, and two block from an episcopalian church i'm basically anne frank squared.
― balls, Thursday, 2 June 2011 01:49 (fifteen years ago)