Sure. Dogmatic anything. Dogmatic anger (ie. hatred) is one of my favorites. Having virtues and sins in the first place serve two purposes 1) reflecting our fundamental values, and 2) having a starting point for a coherent conversation we can share with anyone regardless of whatever other memetic conflicts which would otherwise tend to prevent that conversation from happening in the first place. If we insisted on making "faith" alone the sin we would in effect shut down any important conversation about ethics we could possibly share with the majority of the current English speaking universe. Yes, we could continue to talk with them, but it would no longer exist as conversation where both parties actually listened to each other and hence a pointless exercise from our point of view.
A lot has been made about contagious ideas in discussing memetics - Richard Dawkins' use of "viruses of the mind" when he coined the word "meme" probably initially framed it that way. However, I'd suggest the stronger memetic effects lie not so much in the development irresistibly contagious ideas but rather in ideas and words which stop other competing ideas from spreading in the first place.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #107 on: 2010-01-22 20:10:46 »
I am brand new to the Church of Virus, though I have been on the same journey in thought for most of my life. I have thought a lot about the impropriety of religion and the subversive effects it has on human dignity and progress. Religion has served its purpose, as they say. Unfortunately, it is still around.
From what I gather, the purpose of this debate is to name the actions which the CoV considers as halting advancement to real solutions to problems in the world. "Sins" which stymie real efforts to decrease suffering. "Sins" which halt innovations aimed to increase happiness in the world.
Organized religion has been the primo sin, according to our standards. What makes it so? It attacks innovation, free thought, liberty, and the ethical use of science to create real positive change world wide.
The ultimate irony of human history. Each individual strives for answers, strives for reasons, purpose. In the most basic sense, this is why religion was born - what we now identify as mythical reasons for the way things are, mythical purpose to our oh so short lives, reasons and purpose for the suffering humanity experiences and sees. Perverted beyond its time, religion has destroyed so much, caused so much suffering, relegated purpose to the supernatural unknown afterlife which has no bearing on the origin of looking for purpose and reason.
I propose that all that religion relies on to pervert human dignity, which have no real ground in reality, be deemed as sin. Dogma AND Faith.
As the posters here and in the original debate have shown, dogma and faith are mutually inclusive as sins, yet are both distinct ideas. They both deserve equal enmity. Along with all other precepts which serve to subject the individual to betray her individuality and forgo free thought.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #108 on: 2010-01-22 21:05:22 »
I should add : ------------------------------------- 1. Faith is a sin which can exist outside dogma. I think it was Bertrand Russel who said that faith is where emotion is substituted for evidence.
When reality is ignored that is a sin against reason. Faith is ignoring reality, and is therefore a sin. Faith is what I like to call perverted hope. ------------------------------------- 2. Dogma exists outside faith. It is the doctrine. One can easily live within the dogma and have no faith. Whether the obedience be out of apathy, fear, or faith, the same effect occurs - propagation of myth as truth.
Each sin is equally destructive. They are distinct ideas from one another but tied together in a rich history.
Again, I say they each deserve designation as sin.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #109 on: 2010-01-22 21:30:36 »
Welcome Debbie,
Yes, I think we all understand how dogma and faith work in religion to drag us all down. If we could effectively fight back simply with a knee jerk reaction, I think framing faith as the first sin would probably be the way to go. The word and the idea do seem to elicit strong reactions from both sides of the belief v. non-belief aisle. I would argue however that dogmatism isn't really distinct from faith in this regard but rather a smaller yet better defined subset of the same things we detest. I would also suggest that occasionally in a secular political sense religion has served some non-dogmatic progressive purposes. Usually it doesn't but on the occasions that it does we need to simply acknowledge it and move on.
Here I am thinking specifically about such things as the civil rights movement in the United States which built its original power base in the black churches in the south. I would also point out the original impetus towards scientific investigation during the middle ages when the Catholic church produced Galileo. Yes, of course they acted self-defeating in forcing him to recant his scientific positions, but he would have never had the luxury to come to his heretical conclusions in the first place if he didn't have the patronage of that very same church for so many years. Likewise, I'm content to welcome the Catholic church's newfound appreciation for the now relatively ancient and accepted science of evolution at the same time I deplore their anti-birth control policies which could eventually condemn us all as species to extinction.
I think what we at the Church of the Virus struggle with is that being reasonable, having vision and empathy and eschewing dogmatism, hypocrisy, and apathy does not make for as simple a path as it initially sounds. It is never going to be a simple Us v Them struggle. If it was it would be long over by now and part of keeping the humanist/transhumanist struggle viable is realizing that and to be willing to slice the pie just right instead of throwing it all out as a contaminated mess which might otherwise be the only reasonable conclusion in the absence of such precision.
Dogmatism is the curse of faith, but not the definition of all faith. Even as Pat Condell fears that faith has the potential to enslave us all and even brands himself as an "aggressive atheist" he makes similar thoughtful and wise distinctions himself which I think make him an even more effective advocate for reason compared to many other atheist commentators.
A free rattlesnake with every bunny purchase is how he frames it so nicely. Nobody wants to be against the cute bunny rabbits of spirituality so many of us senselessly expose ourselves to the rattlesnakes of dogmatism, not because its really necessary, but just because that's how the parasitic marketing scheme works, "like dead-heading flowers before they've had the chance to bloom".
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #110 on: 2010-01-24 22:59:48 »
[MoEnzyme] <snip>Here I am thinking specifically about such things as the civil rights movement in the United States which built its original power base in the black churches in the south. I would also point out the original impetus towards scientific investigation during the middle ages when the Catholic church produced Galileo. Yes, of course they acted self-defeating in forcing him to recant his scientific positions, but he would have never had the luxury to come to his heretical conclusions in the first place if he didn't have the patronage of that very same church for so many years.<snap> [Hermit] Outside of the black crutches, crutches in the USA, like crutches everywhere, were far more supportive of slavery than opposed to it, until the rise of humanism began to swing public opinion against it and eventually the crutches followed. If any crutch can be said to have opposed slavery, then I would say that the Quakers who were not slave holders, or slaves did a far more credible job of opposing slavery than the crutches run by slaves, even as most US crutches followed the US Supreme Court's determination that slavery is compatible with the Constitution and preached that slavery is compatible with Christianity. Meanwhile, had the black churches undertaken education and banking programs, as the Quakers did amongst the working class, rather than preying upon their members through the systematic extraction of funds, as they still do today, the American black community might be far better off than they are.
When Galileo came to support the Copernican heliocentric world view as a result of his observations, not as a result of anything related to the Catholics, he was employed, not by the Catholic Crutch, but by the University of Padua, teaching geometry, mechanics, and astronomy. Consequently the Jesuits prosecuted him, and he agreed not to support this position. When he reiterated it in "Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo" he was prosecuted by the inquisition and placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. His views, and the heliocentric view, were suppressed by the Catholic crutch until the 1800s, with devastating results on astronomy.
So the patronage of the Catholics was neither needed, nor supplied, nor helpful to Galileo, and the conclusion that it was in any way helpful to the development of astronomy is fabricated out of whole cloth.
I could attack the rest of the assertions here, but it would be petty. After all, I know that Jake would never argue that because the Klu Klux Klan, another organization intimately interlinked with Southern churches, might sometimes organize drives to help rescue puppies from euthanasia, does not mean that we should embrace them or their churches for having served "some non-dogmatic progressive purposes".
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #111 on: 2010-01-25 01:58:26 »
Hermit,
I think you demonstrate very little idea of the role black churches played and continue to play in political organizing in the deep south in the US. This was where Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. gathered his initial political strength, indeed black churches were the ONLY viable route for black political power in the south. It may well have been that way simply because their churches were the only place where blacks were allowed to gather and organize in large numbers, but your assertions that the black community should have just pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, vaulted over Jim Crow laws, declared their independence from religion, formed their own banks etc . . . well that's just simply laughable. That suggestion would make a lot more sense today, but prior to the civil rights movement any attempts at that kind of self-sufficiency among blacks were regularly rewarded with night-riding terrorism, arson, and lynchings.
I'm less certain on your assertions about Galileo, but some research through wikipedia indicates to me that his tenure at Padua began in 1592 and the Republic of Venice didn't have any significant split with the church in Rome until 1605 and even then they reconciled a year later. The very idea of secular institutions hardly existed in Europe post Hypatia and prior to the enlightenment - many decades after Galileo's tenure at Padua at earliest estimations. I think it just about goes without saying that all European universities were religious institutions at that time; indeed I had always assumed that was the reason they are sometimes called the "dark ages". Your characterization of the University of Padua being a secular institution in the middle ages seems like anachronistic imagination at best - much like your belief in the possibility of black economic strength in Jim Crow south.
Your tendency to reinvent history for these examples reflects the very problem of making faith the first sin instead of dogmatism. For some reason you want to carve out a special exception for the Quakers (perhaps you have friends there?), but if you really think faith is the sin then the Quakers have to be evil too.
Galileo's full name was Galileo di Vincenzo Bonaiuti de' Galilei. At the age of 8, his family moved to Florence, but he was left with Jacopo Borghini for two years.[1] He then was educated in the Camaldolese Monastery at Vallombrosa, 35 km southeast of Florence.[1] Although he seriously considered the priesthood as a young man, he enrolled for a medical degree at the University of Pisa at his father's urging. He did not complete this degree, but instead studied mathematics.[11] In 1589, he was appointed to the chair of mathematics in Pisa. In 1591 his father died and he was entrusted with the care of his younger brother Michelagnolo. In 1592, he moved to the University of Padua, teaching geometry, mechanics, and astronomy until 1610
The University of Pisa (Italian Universitą di Pisa) is located in Pisa, Tuscany. It was formally founded on the September 3, 1343[1] by an edict of Pope Clement VI, although there had been lectures on law in Pisa since the 11th century.
So there is all of Galileo's education prior to 1592, all of it in religious institutions. Even assuming Hermit's assertion that it was a secular institution, it remains fairly obvious that Galileo did not spring into existence in 1592 a fully literate and educated person at Padua, and without his prior education he wouldn't have been of any use at Padua.
The university was founded in 1222 when a large group of students and professors left the University of Bologna in search of more academic freedom ('Libertas scholastica'). The first subjects to be taught were jurisprudence and theology.
I couldn't find anything specifically about whether or not the University of Padua was a religious institution when Galileo taught there. I suspect that's because it generally goes without saying that universities in the middle ages were religious institutions whether they started that way or not. That is it went without saying prior to Hermit's revelation . . . I read some stuff on the actual website for the modern University of Padua that describes its initial formation as independent from the "pope or emperor", however it goes on to say . . .
Later, in the fifteenth/sixteenth century, the appointment and payment of university teachers became the preserve of the public authorities.
Said authorities having allegiance to the church in Rome (except for that brief tiff in 1605). Anyway - the fact remains that most if not all of Galileo's education was at religious institutions.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #112 on: 2010-01-26 00:38:07 »
I was, as anyone reading in context, without the blinkers of thinking only of relatively recent "civil rights" movements would have realized, referring to the black churches in the 1800s when slavery technically ended, not those of the 1960s. Slavery indisputably ended despite the position of the vast majority of US churches - including the black churches - which were by and large a Southern phenomenon, with pretty much the solitary exception of the Religious Society of Friends who engaged in civil disobedience on a wide scale to oppose slavery (including significant involvement in organizing and operating the so called "Underground railway"). Or do I misunderstand you? Are you suggesting that the black churches sprang fully formed from Zeus's brow after the Democrats and Republicans had already swapped positions? I suggest that John Brown's terrorism and the fact that he refused to speak to a minister before his hanging as he did not wish to associate with a pro-slavery cleric, and an abolitionist priest could not be found or would not have been safe, demonstrated fairly conclusively that this was not really the case. I could speak about the crutches of the 1950s, but I won't bother, Your assertions about my lack of knowledge suggest that you won't accept what I say anyway and I have many calls on my time. My suggestion is that you might find "Lies my Teacher Taught Me" enlightening, even if you are not up for a full course of Toynbee. At any rate, whatever you didn't say about black churches, cannot possibly be taken as showing that my position was or is invalid no matter how much you may attempt to assert that this is the case.
Similarly, I didn't say that Universities in Renaissance Italy were secular (the Dark or Middle Ages were killed by the plague, in Italy as elsewhere in Europe, by making vassals to valuable to sustain feudalism), that was your red herring. I did say that Galileo's thinking was "as a result of his observations" and not due to anything said by the Catholic Church. Which I think is unarguable, seeing as that was what he himself was writing about (the evidence of the tides for gravity and a heliocentric system), and the Catholic Church took grave exception to it. So I think you hared off the beaten track there, following a burning strawman of your own devising.
As for my alleged penchant for the (European) Quakers, it has nothing to do with their religion (which tends to a Humanist Universalist stance) and has everything to do with the many principled humanitarian interventions in which they have campaigned, including against the transatlantic slave trade, and for the rights of blacks, women, prisoners and gays; along with their demonstrated organizational and management skills. This continues. Oxfam, Greenpeace and other respected international rights and aid organizations still see much valuable Quaker input. Naturally that doesn't mean that I support the Religious Society of Friends or their goals, see them as less deluded than other religions, or even that these actions were particularly inspired by their religion, simply that from my knowledge of their involvement in abolition in Europe, knowing how much this put them at odds with society, I excuse them from having been apologists for slave owners and noted that this put them in sharp contrast to the vast majority of other churches - including the black churches.
In conclusion, even leaving your pitiful confusion between approving an action and supporting all those others who might also approve of it aside, I think I have sufficiently rebutted your mis-characterizations and shown the irrelevance of your quotations that your assertion that I have a "tendency to reinvent history for these examples" must fail dismally, and thus your conclusion that this, "reflects the very problem of making faith the first sin instead of dogmatism" is left with no visible means of support - although I must confess that even had your assertions not been invalidated, I don't see how they could possibly be interpreted to make "reflects the very problem of making faith the first sin instead of dogmatism" dependent upon them, and so the conclusion would in any case fail as a simple non sequitur, not only does it "not follow", it does not even waddle like a duck in the wake of your scattered thoughts.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #113 on: 2010-01-26 10:11:12 »
Hermit,
Perhaps our problem is that we culturally had different teachers lying to us, making it difficult to share notes about our deceptions. So, lets see, we seem to agree that we were talking about different times in post slavery US. I'll check out your reference through google/amazon/internet-cloud-in-the-sky. Generally in the US, when someone says the words "civil rights movement" they refer to those events which most proximately lead to MLK Jr. and desegregation in the 20th century. Although in the purest meaning of those words, they could mean a lot of other things as well, for cultural US wikiality I think you can count on MLK and desegregation. As far as Galileo goes . . . right I think we both agree he came to his conclusions on his own, I guess I'm just trying to point out who's purses were opened for his efforts. In that day and time, there was very little practical use for this kind of pure science of astronomy, except perhaps for the church to keep the flock in awe at their ability to make sense of the heavens for them as they gazed up at the night sky or witnessed eclipses, etc.
Indeed it seems that Galileo started out as one of that awe-stricken flock himself even having the childhood dream of becoming a priest, he just had too much curiosity for his own good on that path and somehow mistakenly believed that the theological philosopher kings in Rome actually cared about it as much as he did. Of course he changed his mind about them long after it was too late, but then he wouldn't have even had such an opportunity for such regrets in the first place if some people on earth were interested in knowing about the heavens even if their motives weren't so pure. I wasn't trying to assert what wonderful people these clergy are, but simply to point out that sometimes they do something good or happen to be correct whether or not they actually intended to. Which seems to me your point with the Quakers. So we choose different examples. ok.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #114 on: 2010-01-26 11:39:57 »
I avoided most of the teachers, and so if they lied, I avoided most of the lying. Had I not avoided teachers it probably wouldn't have made much difference. In most of the world it isn't necessary to maintain a patriotic insecurity blanket of exceptionalism for one's own nation, its motivations and actions, nor is it considered necessary to make history conform to an heroic model to avoid questions of motivation. Outside of American classrooms, class struggles are recognized as a primary driver of historic events and are considered in context as an integral, inseparable and critical component of history, giving the children of most other countries an enormous advantage over those of America, which utterly banishes all concept of class from its history books and classes, leaving the motivations of people, including blacks, a complete mystery to American students at least until undergraduate studies.
Contra the latest assertions, astronomy was required from very early times for determination of the calendar, navigation and divination. The former of these are extremely practical. In the environment of Northern Italy where the vast bulk of its substantial income was driven by trade, much of it dependent on ships, there was a very visible "practical use for this kind of pure science of astronomy" which is why Galileo was supported in his research not by the Catholic Church, but by his patron Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany to whom he dedicated The Dialogue.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #115 on: 2010-01-26 12:17:15 »
Re teachers: well, I rarely did any homework, but I was good at listening and passing tests, probably leading into all sorts of horrible memetic infections.
Re: astronomy - most of the navigational aspects of astronomy only require a rough understanding of the "fixed stars", so even if you believed that the earth is the "center" of our local solar system rather than the sun, you could still get where you needed to go on that assumption. The planets of course were trickier, but generally unnecessary for navigational purposes. If you weren't opposed to calculating unnecessarily complicated "epicycles" you could still get pretty close to their actual location leaving one to puzzle about the minor errors later which weren't really related to any real practicalities of seafaring navigation. Calendar applications could mostly be slightly updated a bit from year to year and only really required keeping track of the sun which of course is the easiest astronomical body to follow on a daily basis. Perhaps some navigators may have been impressed with Galileo's extraordinary accuracy on some of this, but they didn't need that degree of accuracy for their more mundane practical purposes.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #116 on: 2010-01-26 15:05:17 »
Mo: Astronomy today is clock based. But they didn't have accurate clocks for navigation until the 1800s. So they used transits, occlusions and grazing occlusions instead. Which is why this was a major part of Galileo's work - and why your argument is a major fail.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Mo: Astronomy today is clock based. But they didn't have accurate clocks for navigation until the 1800s. So they used transits, occlusions and grazing occlusions instead. Which is why this was a major part of Galileo's work - and why your argument is a major fail.
[Walter] It was closer to the mid-1700s that decent naval chronometers, sparked by John Harrison's tireless efforts at their development, became available. Of course the early ones of any use required that the captain cede about half of his quarters to the behemoth chronometers!
Re: concerning the need for accurate clocks for navigation, the movie below is an absolute must-see.
I really can't stress what a joy this was to watch. Enjoy!
In the 18th century, the only way to navigate accurately at sea was to follow a coastline all the way, which would not get you from Europe to the West Indies or the Americas. Observing the sun or stars would give you the latitude, but not the longitude unless done in conjunction with a clock that would keep time accurately at sea, and no such clock existed. After one too many maritime disasters due to navigational errors, the British Parliament set up a substantial prize for a way to find the longitude at sea. The film's main story is that of craftsman John Harrison: he built a clock that would do the job, what we would now call a marine chronometer. But the Board of Longitude was biased against this approach and claiming the prize was no simple matter. Told in parallel is the 20th century story of Rupert Gould, for whom the restoration of Harrison's clocks to working order became first a hobby, then an obsession that threatened to wreck his life.
"Longitude" follows John Harrison's quest to find the key to determining longitude. In the 18th century, the problem of measuring longitude confounded scientists, sailors and politicians. In 1707, unable to determine their exact location through a thick fog, 2,000 men of the British fleet perished by accidentally running into the rocks off the Scilly Islands. As a result of this tragedy, in 1714 the British Parliament passed the Act of Longitude to offer an enormous cash prize to the person who could solve the problem of longitude. A carpenter by trade, Harrison believes that the solution lies in finding a way to measure time accurately, going against many of the scientists of the day, who feel that the mystery would be solved through celestial navigation. Harrison designs and creates four increasingly refined timekeepers. This work takes him through 30 years of struggle and determination (not only his but his family's, friends', and allies' as well) to solve what was referred to as the "greatest scientific problem of the time." Along the way, he faces the animosity and interference of many of the celestial navigation proponents.
When the British Parliament creates an award of £20,000 to whoever can come up with a solution for determining longitude at sea, a carpenter-turned-clockmaker, John Harrison, begins his experiments to build an accurate timepiece unaffected by sea travel. His main obstacles are lack of money, a judgment Board convinced that the answer lies in astronomy and not clocks, and the mechanics of the clock itself. Rupert Gould, a retired naval officer who suffered a nervous breakdown in WWI, has been researching Harrison's history and makes efforts to locate and restore Harrison's clocks. Harrison's and Gould's struggles are linked by the clocks which the two men will, across 200 years, make tick accurately enough to measure longitude.
User Reviews:
A&E's "Longitude" is perhaps the most emotionally compelling, made for TV dramas yet. I was so impressed when I first saw Longitude on A&E that I had to buy it on DVD the minute it came out. A highly realistic, fully drawn out, historical drama of how one man's dream tamed time and space, "Longitude" strikes home with its all-star cast (including Jeremy Irons and Micheal Gambon) and two-part storyline. The first story is that of a carpenter, John Harrison, who struggled for almost 50 years to perfect a "practical and useful" marine chronometer. The second story revolves around Commander Rupert Gould, a man who discovers Harrison's forgotten prototypes and fights to not only restore the timepieces but to also restore the honor of Harrison.
"Longitude" is filled with tons of edge-of-your-seat, gritty scenes, and every second of the 200-minute film glows with a profound message. The ending scene is especially powerful, in which Rupert Gould remarks, "What makes a man great? A man may be great in his aims, or in his achievements, or in both...but I think that man is truly great who makes the world his debtor..who does something for the world which the world needs, and which nobody before him has done or known how to do."
Definitely a great educational film to watch, and an excellent film to own. "Longitude" is an unforgettable experience and a demonstration of just how good a movie can be.
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #118 on: 2010-01-27 12:29:00 »
Walter
While chronometers gradually became available to British warships in the late 1700s (for example, James Cook had one by the time of his second voyage in 1772) - they cost about 1/3 the price of a fully provisioned vessel at that stage, and so were as scarce as hen's teeth. By the early 1800s the British Admiralty was handing them out like toffee to commercial vessels in exchange for maps and soundings. Captains that had none (or two) got one, Captains that had one received two (so as to know which was correct). This was how the Admiralty built up the world's pre-eminent collection of nautical charts.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Sure. Dogmatic anything. Dogmatic anger (ie. hatred) is one of my favorites. Having virtues and sins in the first place serve two purposes 1) reflecting our <snip>....<snip>A lot has been made about contagious ideas in discussing memetics - Richard Dawkins' use of "viruses of the mind" when he coined the word "meme" probably initially framed it that way. However, I'd suggest the stronger memetic effects lie not so much in the development irresistibly contagious ideas but rather in ideas and words which stop other competing ideas from spreading in the first place. -Mo
Faith is the problem word for me. the Usage and meaning of Dogma and its uses seems unambiguous by and large (until Hermit goes at it -poke-). Faith on the other hand is used in many ways to mean very different things.
I would go so far as to suggest in some common usage; Faith is a necessary force of life otherwise why get up at all, since we don't have all the answers and a leap of Faith is how we move forward as long as we question and evaluate as we look back before we continue forward; The time/longitude discussion is rather appropriate since Faith is how we as people function since we do not have an accurate "time piece" for knowing how everything will turn out. But if we are Dogmatic in the face of this, not knowing and unwilling to reevaluated and meaningful at a point in the 'time' it will go badly I think.
So Dogma is the SIN it would seem to me. Faith has to many common usages with to many interpretation for me.
On a side note I saw "Creation" Jon Amiel's telling of Charles Darwin's story. I thought it was very well done. It is the best depiction of a dysfunctional relationship brought on by the death of a child I have ever seen. It does a very good job of looking under the cover of Faith and Dogma. Not Hollywood; but really liked it; beautiful photography !
Author
Logged
