On my last entry, I was taken to task for referring to male circumcision as "genital mutilation" and saying that it was "completely unnecessary." Not only that, but it became a topic for debate at work. I shall amend my statement a bit.
A few things I should get out of the way first though.
1) Female "circumcision" really is nothing more than genital mutilation, and I absolutely will not bend on this (not that anybody's asking me to). The equivalent would be if (Gross out alert!) the entire head of a boy's penis were cut off.
2) I am not upset at my parents for circumcising me. I don't blame them, and I don't think that it's been detrimental to my life.
3) Andrew Nolan, who took me to task for my statement, is a poo-head. Not only that, but he eats poo. The man owns End of Days on DVD. Not only that, but it is his favorite movie of all time. He also admires Hitler. And he's gay, which I don't have a problem with, but it's not fair to his wife that he refers to her as "the beard." He also doesn't know the difference between oranges and shoes. In short, he's a communist. And a prostitute.
That said, if it came down to it, and I had to make the choice between circumcision and noncircumcision, either for myself or for a hypothetical son, I would not go through with it. Following are the reasons why people do have it done, and why I don't think that they're good enough.
1. Aesthetics - This all depends on where you're from, isn't it? What about here though? Turns out that 56% (according to Kidshealth.org) of male babies a year are circumcised. I don't have the numbers, but I imagine that the number was much higher when I was born. What I'm saying is, as times are changing, the uncircumcised (henceforth "natural") penis won't look so "weird" to people in the U.S. Who knows, if trends continue, the circumcised boys may wind up being the ones who look odd!
2. Religion/tradition - Next. If you've ever read any of my blogs, you can probably guess how I feel. Religion can excuse why you don't eat meat on a Friday, not cutting stuff off of a baby. Tradition is used to justify all sorts of awful ideas and behaviors, and even if you want to play that game, the human race has a much grander tradition of NOT circumcising!
3. Health - Well, this is the tricky one, isn't it? Again, according to Kidshealth.org (and further research seems to back this up) the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend it. To be fair though, they didn't find enough evidence to either recommend it or recommend against it. Seems to me that what they're saying is that it's unnecessary but not awful.
Of course, as Andrew (keep in mind, he's a card-carrying member of the Pol Pot fan club) pointed out, there are some doctors out there who are very much in favor of the procedure. I suppose that it's something to consider, but you'll also find scientists who deny the human impact on global warming and scientists who say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I'm not enough of an expert in this issue to say that those doctors are as quacky as the young-Earth scientists are, but a few voices in the wilderness aren't enough to convince me.
So, if it were up to me, we'd stop doing it. I would never choose to have it done to somebody, and if I could turn back time, I'd have it not done to me. However, I would not frown upon those who decide to have it done. I do frown upon Andrew Nolan though, but that's because he hands out meth to children on Halloween.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Where's the line?
Turns out that the Dale and Leilani Neumann, the ones who let their 11-year old daughter die by because they wanted to pray for her instead of taking her to a doctor, have more children. Right now, their children have been removed from their home, but they're expected to return. After all, there are no signs that Dale and Leilani physically abuse them, so they can't keep them from their children. Of course, if they catch a life-threatening, but treatable, disease, then they're screwed.
Part of me thinks that people like this should have their children taken away from them. After all, isn't this a form of psychological abuse? I'd certainly say it is. If I told my children to sacrifice a heifer to Apollo everytime they got sick instead of going to the doctor, the general public would think that I was a crazy person. But is it any crazier than what they believe? Sure, their form of prayer is less messy, but it won't lead to hamburgers afterwards. The point is though, if this is what I taught my children, I think that most people would agree that I was an unfit parent. Even if my children didn't die as a result, they would teach these crazy things to their children - leaving more potential victims. Also, if you're that illogical when it comes to medicine, what else are you willing to do? As I wrote in a previous blog, it's the same mode of thinking that when cranked up a notch turns to dangerous extremism.
But how many people are like that in this country? Can you imagine the nightmare in trying to track them all down and enforce this sort of a thing? Unfortunately, I think that this is one of the many prices that we pay for living in a free country. That's something that people don't like to think about too much. After all, it's human nature to want to protect children, and that sounds almost like an "oh well" type of an attitude. Still, is this really solveable?
Yet there has to be a line somewhere. I just started reading Infidel by Ayann Hirsi Ali. She was born in Somalia and had to undergo the ritual of female gential mutilation. She describes it in some vivid detail in her book. It's one of the most horrific things that I've ever read, especially knowing that it's true and it's still happening in some African countries. (The ones who do it claim that it's a requirement of Islam - but nobody can find a passage in the Koran or anything else that would back this up. Turns out, the practice predates the coming of Islam in certain parts of Africa.)
Surely we must never allow that sort of a thing in this country. For me, there's no question that we should intervene if people were trying to do that to their daughters.
And yet, people still have the genitals of their sons mutilated - all in direct conflict with how medical science has shown that it's completely unnecessary. And no, I'm not trying to compare my circumcision with what Ayann Hirsi Ali went through. However, the reasons for doing it are the same - tradition and faith.
I realize that I have no definite answer to this question. While there are definitely some things where the government should intervene, there's a lot of gray area. Perhaps the line will be clearer when there's an outbreak of whooping cough due to parents who refuse immunizations for their children (and I realize that not all of these refusals are on religious grounds).
Check out the following link: Children's Health Care is a Legal Duty, Inc. Maybe you can tell me where the line is.
Part of me thinks that people like this should have their children taken away from them. After all, isn't this a form of psychological abuse? I'd certainly say it is. If I told my children to sacrifice a heifer to Apollo everytime they got sick instead of going to the doctor, the general public would think that I was a crazy person. But is it any crazier than what they believe? Sure, their form of prayer is less messy, but it won't lead to hamburgers afterwards. The point is though, if this is what I taught my children, I think that most people would agree that I was an unfit parent. Even if my children didn't die as a result, they would teach these crazy things to their children - leaving more potential victims. Also, if you're that illogical when it comes to medicine, what else are you willing to do? As I wrote in a previous blog, it's the same mode of thinking that when cranked up a notch turns to dangerous extremism.
But how many people are like that in this country? Can you imagine the nightmare in trying to track them all down and enforce this sort of a thing? Unfortunately, I think that this is one of the many prices that we pay for living in a free country. That's something that people don't like to think about too much. After all, it's human nature to want to protect children, and that sounds almost like an "oh well" type of an attitude. Still, is this really solveable?
Yet there has to be a line somewhere. I just started reading Infidel by Ayann Hirsi Ali. She was born in Somalia and had to undergo the ritual of female gential mutilation. She describes it in some vivid detail in her book. It's one of the most horrific things that I've ever read, especially knowing that it's true and it's still happening in some African countries. (The ones who do it claim that it's a requirement of Islam - but nobody can find a passage in the Koran or anything else that would back this up. Turns out, the practice predates the coming of Islam in certain parts of Africa.)
Surely we must never allow that sort of a thing in this country. For me, there's no question that we should intervene if people were trying to do that to their daughters.
And yet, people still have the genitals of their sons mutilated - all in direct conflict with how medical science has shown that it's completely unnecessary. And no, I'm not trying to compare my circumcision with what Ayann Hirsi Ali went through. However, the reasons for doing it are the same - tradition and faith.
I realize that I have no definite answer to this question. While there are definitely some things where the government should intervene, there's a lot of gray area. Perhaps the line will be clearer when there's an outbreak of whooping cough due to parents who refuse immunizations for their children (and I realize that not all of these refusals are on religious grounds).
Check out the following link: Children's Health Care is a Legal Duty, Inc. Maybe you can tell me where the line is.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Who Are You?
So, I've finally written a new Eagle-Man short story. It probably needs some tweaking, but there's a lot that I like about it.
It has everything that you'd want in a story: superheroes, vampires, and blasphemy. Take the time to read it. What else do you have to do?
Link
EDIT: Apparently the link doesn't work for some. Try copying and pasting the following:
http://www.geocities.com/lancecjohnson@sbcglobal.net/WhoAreYou.doc
It has everything that you'd want in a story: superheroes, vampires, and blasphemy. Take the time to read it. What else do you have to do?
Link
EDIT: Apparently the link doesn't work for some. Try copying and pasting the following:
http://www.geocities.com/lancecjohnson@sbcglobal.net/WhoAreYou.doc
The real problem
Some time ago, I was having a discussion about what's going on in the Middle East. Of course, we weren't talking about tea and falafel, we were discussing terrorism and the human rights abuses that are going on in the Muslim world. The person whom I was speaking with said that if we really needed to get down to what the problem was, it wasn't a "war on terror", it was a war on Islam. In other words, Islam was what the problem actually was.
I couldn't find myself agreeing. Something about it didn't sit right with me, and I know too much history to know that plenty of other religions have been corrupted to bring about death and mayhem. Still, there's no denying that the Muslim world has some definite issues with which to deal.
I just finished reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and it's making me start to rethink my attitude on this. I read Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great awhile ago, and while it did give me a couple of new ways of looking at things, it basically told me a lot of stuff that I was already familiar with. Dawkins' book, however, really gave me a lot to think about. I also like the way he puts things. Although I'm not a scientist myself, I have a great deal of respect for scientists like himself and their approach to the problems of life.
Anyway, so my view has shifted. However, I think that blaming Islam for the problems with terrorism isn't going far enough. Why are these men willing to blow themselves up? For eternal rewards in heaven. Do they have some actual evidence that this will happen? Of course not. What do they have? Faith.
And that's the problem, isn't it. My friend Andrew sent me the following link: Parents Pick Prayer over Docs; Girl Dies. The headline tells you pretty much all you need to know for my point here. And unless you live in a cave, you've heard of this kind of thing happening before. What killed this girl? Faith.
I once had a student who was a Jehovah's Witness write in an essay how her religion's belief about refusing blood transfusions "made sense". She was a very bright girl in many respects, and it was an example of how bright people can believe in the dumbest things. She managed to wrap her head around that concept so thoroughly that unless you knew better, it actually WOULD make sense! The thing is, I was very tempted to write on her essay, "I'd like to agree with you, but I wouldn't be alive to read this if it weren't for blood transfusions." I wish that I did. Why didn't I though? Because I wanted to respect faith.
Well, I'm starting to think that respecting faith isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Am I to respect the people who teach their children lies about science? (See my last blog - 'cause make no mistake, that's precisely what they're doing - lying.) Am I to respect the decision of those parents who let their daughter die?
I realize what some people might be thinking when they read this. "Oh, I have faith, but I don't do anything crazy like that." The problem is, if you have faith, you believe in things without evidence. That's the same thought process that leads to little girls dying and buildings blowing up. I mean, can you really draw a distinction between the terror of Muslim fanatics and the terror of Christian fanatics? The end result is the same - death. Death for no good reason.
What if all those terrorists were raised to question things that have no evidence? What if those parents had been taught the same thing? What should we teach children? Why is it a virtue to tell them that they should "just believe" things? My parents, ironically enough if you've read my arguments with my mother, taught me to always question things. Of course, they both still have faith, so the way I see it, their own questioning only goes so far. Well, they put a powerful weapon in my hand, the "utltimate nullifier" of irrational belief systems. I questioned astrology. I questioned ghosts. I questioned demons. And ultimately, I pointed that same critical finger that I pointed at woo-woo beliefs like alien abductions right at myself and my own beliefs. I could have chosen what was comforting (although a false sense of comfort) or what was rational. I chose the latter.
Of course, people will say, "But faith gives me comfort." That's fantastic. A bottle of gin a night gives some people comfort - that doesn't make it good for them.
I've also had people (including family members) say to me that they have faith because otherwise there's "no point" to life. Well, if you can't see any point to life without an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful magical being, then that shows an incredible lack of imagination on your part, doesn't it?
Obviously, I feel rather strong about this. There's only one thing that I feel stronger about, and that's living in a free society. While I feel that faith is ultimately the enemy of rationall thought, I believe even less in forcing people to see things my way. Ultimately, I can respect people who have faith. I don't intend to attack their beliefs every chance I get. However, I don't expect people to respect my vices, so why should I respect theirs?
So, what can I do? All I've got is this little blog, I guess. It might not change anything, but what else can I do?
I'll end this with a quote. "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
Who said that? Osama bin Laden? David Koresh? Try Martin Luther. Here are some more: http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Reason.htm.
I couldn't find myself agreeing. Something about it didn't sit right with me, and I know too much history to know that plenty of other religions have been corrupted to bring about death and mayhem. Still, there's no denying that the Muslim world has some definite issues with which to deal.
I just finished reading Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, and it's making me start to rethink my attitude on this. I read Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great awhile ago, and while it did give me a couple of new ways of looking at things, it basically told me a lot of stuff that I was already familiar with. Dawkins' book, however, really gave me a lot to think about. I also like the way he puts things. Although I'm not a scientist myself, I have a great deal of respect for scientists like himself and their approach to the problems of life.
Anyway, so my view has shifted. However, I think that blaming Islam for the problems with terrorism isn't going far enough. Why are these men willing to blow themselves up? For eternal rewards in heaven. Do they have some actual evidence that this will happen? Of course not. What do they have? Faith.
And that's the problem, isn't it. My friend Andrew sent me the following link: Parents Pick Prayer over Docs; Girl Dies. The headline tells you pretty much all you need to know for my point here. And unless you live in a cave, you've heard of this kind of thing happening before. What killed this girl? Faith.
I once had a student who was a Jehovah's Witness write in an essay how her religion's belief about refusing blood transfusions "made sense". She was a very bright girl in many respects, and it was an example of how bright people can believe in the dumbest things. She managed to wrap her head around that concept so thoroughly that unless you knew better, it actually WOULD make sense! The thing is, I was very tempted to write on her essay, "I'd like to agree with you, but I wouldn't be alive to read this if it weren't for blood transfusions." I wish that I did. Why didn't I though? Because I wanted to respect faith.
Well, I'm starting to think that respecting faith isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Am I to respect the people who teach their children lies about science? (See my last blog - 'cause make no mistake, that's precisely what they're doing - lying.) Am I to respect the decision of those parents who let their daughter die?
I realize what some people might be thinking when they read this. "Oh, I have faith, but I don't do anything crazy like that." The problem is, if you have faith, you believe in things without evidence. That's the same thought process that leads to little girls dying and buildings blowing up. I mean, can you really draw a distinction between the terror of Muslim fanatics and the terror of Christian fanatics? The end result is the same - death. Death for no good reason.
What if all those terrorists were raised to question things that have no evidence? What if those parents had been taught the same thing? What should we teach children? Why is it a virtue to tell them that they should "just believe" things? My parents, ironically enough if you've read my arguments with my mother, taught me to always question things. Of course, they both still have faith, so the way I see it, their own questioning only goes so far. Well, they put a powerful weapon in my hand, the "utltimate nullifier" of irrational belief systems. I questioned astrology. I questioned ghosts. I questioned demons. And ultimately, I pointed that same critical finger that I pointed at woo-woo beliefs like alien abductions right at myself and my own beliefs. I could have chosen what was comforting (although a false sense of comfort) or what was rational. I chose the latter.
Of course, people will say, "But faith gives me comfort." That's fantastic. A bottle of gin a night gives some people comfort - that doesn't make it good for them.
I've also had people (including family members) say to me that they have faith because otherwise there's "no point" to life. Well, if you can't see any point to life without an invisible, all-knowing, all-seeing, all-powerful magical being, then that shows an incredible lack of imagination on your part, doesn't it?
Obviously, I feel rather strong about this. There's only one thing that I feel stronger about, and that's living in a free society. While I feel that faith is ultimately the enemy of rationall thought, I believe even less in forcing people to see things my way. Ultimately, I can respect people who have faith. I don't intend to attack their beliefs every chance I get. However, I don't expect people to respect my vices, so why should I respect theirs?
So, what can I do? All I've got is this little blog, I guess. It might not change anything, but what else can I do?
I'll end this with a quote. "Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God."
Who said that? Osama bin Laden? David Koresh? Try Martin Luther. Here are some more: http://www.jesuscult.com/Luther_Anti-Reason.htm.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Let's hear it for Nightline!
One thing that constantly annoys me in the media is when the subject of creationism versus evolution comes up. Usually the approach seems to be that it's some sort of legitimate debate amongst the scientific community, as though the nation's 50/50 split represents the same ratio of difference amongst scientists. The creationists' ideas are given equal weight to the actual scientists.
Well, that's stupid. Would they do that if there was a group of people who were claiming that the Earth was resting on the back of a turtle? Of course not. They'd show them as a bunch of uninformed imbeciles. Because, that's what they are. Which is exactly what creationists are (or at the very least, those who teach it to children.)
This is one of those instances where I cannot have any "respect" for faith. If your faith falls squarely against the facts, then you deserve criticism, just as if your faith denies people basic human rights.
Anyway, it looks as though things may be turning around in the media. First there was the excellent program on Intelligent Design that Nova did a few months ago. Now there's the following story on Nightline.
I was impressed. I was expecting the same old, "Will we ever know which one is correct?" Not this time. Of course, I'd prefer it if they couched the following, "About half the population believes in evolution and the other half does not" as "About half the population accepts evolution and the other half is wrong." Still, the reporter is willing to show just how intellectually dishonest these people are. It's also amazing how easily they get flustered when asked some very simple questions that naturally arise from their "theory".
As always though, the hardest part for me to watch is that they're brainwashing children, but as the guy who works for the museum points out, some of them will start thinking for themselves one day. I guess that's one of the many prices of freedom in this country. You're free to teach your children things that are stupid. It's close to child abuse, but not close enough, I guess.
Well, that's stupid. Would they do that if there was a group of people who were claiming that the Earth was resting on the back of a turtle? Of course not. They'd show them as a bunch of uninformed imbeciles. Because, that's what they are. Which is exactly what creationists are (or at the very least, those who teach it to children.)
This is one of those instances where I cannot have any "respect" for faith. If your faith falls squarely against the facts, then you deserve criticism, just as if your faith denies people basic human rights.
Anyway, it looks as though things may be turning around in the media. First there was the excellent program on Intelligent Design that Nova did a few months ago. Now there's the following story on Nightline.
I was impressed. I was expecting the same old, "Will we ever know which one is correct?" Not this time. Of course, I'd prefer it if they couched the following, "About half the population believes in evolution and the other half does not" as "About half the population accepts evolution and the other half is wrong." Still, the reporter is willing to show just how intellectually dishonest these people are. It's also amazing how easily they get flustered when asked some very simple questions that naturally arise from their "theory".
As always though, the hardest part for me to watch is that they're brainwashing children, but as the guy who works for the museum points out, some of them will start thinking for themselves one day. I guess that's one of the many prices of freedom in this country. You're free to teach your children things that are stupid. It's close to child abuse, but not close enough, I guess.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
We're winning!
The combat death toll in Iraq has now reached 4,000. Yeah, I know that sounds bad. But look on the bright side, it's not as bad as Vietnam. Not only that, but we're winning! Pretty soon, we should be able to stick up a big banner that reads, "Mission Accomplished!" Just imagine what that would be like. Go ahead, imagine it. I'll wait here until you're done imagining what that could possibly be like. It's difficult, I know, but just try. Picture it on an aircraft carrier if it helps.
Why are we winning? Well, there was the troop surge. How do I know we're winning? Bush said so! Pundits have said so! That means that we're winning over in Iraq now.
Of course, you really shouldn't question these assertions. If you do, the troops will somehow find out about it and lose all their self-esteem. Then they'll just roll over and let themselves be shot. One thing's for sure, American soldiers sure are a sensitive lot. They can handle being shot at. They can handle keeping their cool when stuck in a foreign land without interpreters. They can even handle being shot, it seems. One thing that they absolutely can't take though is your negativity. That's far too much for them to bear, so don't do it.
So, cheer up! We're winning! And when the windmill is complete, we'll only have to work three days a week! (Sorry, I still have Animal Farm on the brain.)
Why are we winning? Well, there was the troop surge. How do I know we're winning? Bush said so! Pundits have said so! That means that we're winning over in Iraq now.
Of course, you really shouldn't question these assertions. If you do, the troops will somehow find out about it and lose all their self-esteem. Then they'll just roll over and let themselves be shot. One thing's for sure, American soldiers sure are a sensitive lot. They can handle being shot at. They can handle keeping their cool when stuck in a foreign land without interpreters. They can even handle being shot, it seems. One thing that they absolutely can't take though is your negativity. That's far too much for them to bear, so don't do it.
So, cheer up! We're winning! And when the windmill is complete, we'll only have to work three days a week! (Sorry, I still have Animal Farm on the brain.)
Monday, March 24, 2008
Worst...miracle...EVER!!!
On Easter, da Pope (I call him "da Pope" 'cause he and I are homies.) spoke of the "miracle" of a recent conversion of a Muslim to the Catholic faith.
Really? Miracle? Conversions are miracles? So, when I converted from being a Christian to an atheist, that was a miracle? Thank you, Jesus, for letting me not believe that you're watching my every move, including bowel movements, anymore.
Okay, so we're lowering our standards for miracles I guess. Nobody's parting the Red Sea or turning staffs into snakes, and turning my tap water into beer isn't exactly a one-step process. At least da Pope isn't praising a grilled cheese sandwhich for looking like the Virginia Mary. (Yeah, I know it's Virgin Mary, but she had a kid, and you kinda need to lose your virginity to make that happen. I'm insisting that the whole "virgin" thing is simply a millenia-old typo.)
Apparently, the guy in question is a Muslim named Magdi Allam. You know, Muslims are the people who believe that the prophets kept on going on until some fella named Mohammed came along, and now HE'S the last one (Suck it, David Koresh!) They also don't believe that it's possible for God to be his own son (not to mention some third entity called a "Holy Toast". That's right - there's been another typo). How silly of them. Don't they get that God became his own son in order to kill himself (If a bus comes at me and I don't move out of the way, that's suicide) so he could change his own rules about who goes into heaven and who doesn't? It's a little thing called "The Trinity", and it's in The Bible. Look it up. Actually, don't look it up. Just trust me. You could search for it and totally find it.
So, in your face, Mohammed! This guy obviously carefully weighed the facts between the two religions. He sifted through every minute detail, analyzing for logic, reason, and historical veracity. After a long, careful deliberation, the facts clearly landed on the side of Roman Catholicism, The One True Faith (TM). (Suck it, Shinto!)
Or maybe not. Turns out, he wasn't a practicing Muslim. He's also married to a Catholic. Oh yeah, he was raised by Catholics as well.
Hmmm...thought I saw the Virginia Mary on my pizza today. I was hungry though, so I ate it. Trust me, it was a miracle.
Really? Miracle? Conversions are miracles? So, when I converted from being a Christian to an atheist, that was a miracle? Thank you, Jesus, for letting me not believe that you're watching my every move, including bowel movements, anymore.
Okay, so we're lowering our standards for miracles I guess. Nobody's parting the Red Sea or turning staffs into snakes, and turning my tap water into beer isn't exactly a one-step process. At least da Pope isn't praising a grilled cheese sandwhich for looking like the Virginia Mary. (Yeah, I know it's Virgin Mary, but she had a kid, and you kinda need to lose your virginity to make that happen. I'm insisting that the whole "virgin" thing is simply a millenia-old typo.)
Apparently, the guy in question is a Muslim named Magdi Allam. You know, Muslims are the people who believe that the prophets kept on going on until some fella named Mohammed came along, and now HE'S the last one (Suck it, David Koresh!) They also don't believe that it's possible for God to be his own son (not to mention some third entity called a "Holy Toast". That's right - there's been another typo). How silly of them. Don't they get that God became his own son in order to kill himself (If a bus comes at me and I don't move out of the way, that's suicide) so he could change his own rules about who goes into heaven and who doesn't? It's a little thing called "The Trinity", and it's in The Bible. Look it up. Actually, don't look it up. Just trust me. You could search for it and totally find it.
So, in your face, Mohammed! This guy obviously carefully weighed the facts between the two religions. He sifted through every minute detail, analyzing for logic, reason, and historical veracity. After a long, careful deliberation, the facts clearly landed on the side of Roman Catholicism, The One True Faith (TM). (Suck it, Shinto!)
Or maybe not. Turns out, he wasn't a practicing Muslim. He's also married to a Catholic. Oh yeah, he was raised by Catholics as well.
Hmmm...thought I saw the Virginia Mary on my pizza today. I was hungry though, so I ate it. Trust me, it was a miracle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)