|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 10:34:26 GMT -5
But it was NOT easy getting to this point and believe me, I feel guilty enough about what happened in the past without being called a monster for using the Pearl's "pearls of wisdom". People can and do change and choose better - please remember this. People can have good intentions and make huge mistakes. Dont' de-humanize them - you have not walked in their shoes. Thank you musicmom. Sometimes the writing of Quivering Daughters is painful to read because they do not seem to be able to comprehend that harshness can come out of a loving and protective heart motivation. I used to be the modesty gestapo with my daughters. (They are beautiful and I was so afraid that they would be victims of molestation like I was when I was a teenager). And I was the movie gestapo with all of them (because I was exposed to nudity in movies alone with my daddy) I tried to put a cage around my children in an attempt to protect them from harm because I love them so much and didn't want them to be hurt the way I was. But the cage was harmful. Ultimately, I had to apologize to them and they forgave me.
|
|
|
Post by rosa on Feb 24, 2010 10:40:22 GMT -5
Musicmom, for what it's worth, I think you and Journey and the other moms who were in this milieu, looked at its results, and said "No more" are exactly the kind of heroes we're talking about in relationship to Milgram. And it's the existence of people who can and do recognize when the ideology is causing harm that makes me ascribe guilt to the people who do not. It's a combination of ideology and the willingness to really hurt a child that cause these tragedies - ideology alone won't do it.
|
|
|
Post by verklempt on Feb 24, 2010 10:41:44 GMT -5
Frankly, Im astounded by the people who seem to be justifying away the responsibility these monsters, yes I said it as that is how I see people who murder their children in the name of God, carry in this situation.
I guess Im not enlightened enough to show love towards people who beat a seven year old child to death because she mispronounced a word.
No, Ive not been the parent who beat a child in the name of God but Ive been the child who was beaten in the name of God and in that moment, the parent is more monster than human...than a parent.
Taking it back to the Nazi analogy, the Nazi's who killed and tortured were held responsible for their actions...just as Hitler would have been had he not killed himself. Who was the greater evil? The mind behind the evil or those who carried it out? As I said before, I dont differentiate between the two, especially when it comes to the murder of a small child.
And yes, I do think those parents are criminals. I can only hope the law continues to agree with me.
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Feb 24, 2010 10:57:40 GMT -5
Coleslaw, The Milgram experiments took place in the fifties, I believe, and involved people who were randomly selected from the general population. There's simply no reason to believe, and it has never been asserted, that they had the interest or ability to detect that the experimental situation was "a fake" based on the language used to describe the situation to them. None of the people in the study asserted afterwards that they had the slightest notion that the shocks were not really administered, or that the person receiving the shocks was acting.
The point you are making here doesn't make any sense to me. Are you really arguing that an arcane semantic distinction between "negative reinforcement" and "punishment"--one that I doubt is universally held, let alone made clearly--produced some kind of error in Milgram's experiment? Because I just don't see that that is at all likely. A) very few 'men on the street' would see the distinction that you posit between negative reinforcement and punishment and B) it would take a very suspicious and sophisticated person, well versed in experimental situations and protocols, to take a minor semantic difference "hey, shocking this guy doesn't make any sense! the whole situation is a set up!" and then to undermine the premise by assuming that the shock itself is a fake.
Since Milgram's experimental situation became widely publicized all future such attempts, of course, have worked hard to disguise from the participants just what part of the experiment is the experiment. For example, in a recent "experiment" in which participants were given large numbers to memorize the participants thought that the experiment was to test their *memories*--that is, their ability to hold large numbers in mind while doing other things. But the real experiment had to do with something else. While the participants were "holding" their numbers in their minds they were also told to run down a hallway. As they ran down the hallway to the next room they were, as they thought, accidentally run in to by one of the experimenters who asked them *what they wanted for their reward* if they were able to successfully complete the experiment and repeat their number back faithfully at the end.
The real experiment was to see whether the perceived/real difficulty of the task interfered with or affected other parts of the brain--in this case the larger the number/harder the task the more likely the individual was to "reward" him or herself by choosing the higher calorie "treat" as a reward at the end of the experiment. The lower the number/easier the task the more likely the individual was to maintain diet discipline and opt for the lower calorie treat.
This kind of experiment within an experiment is very common these days because the population being tested is extremely sophisticated about the entire notion of the experimental situation. During the milgram experiment, however, even though the population was less sophisticated they had many cut outs and forms of misdirection that were meant to insure that the experiment took place in an untainted space, and was uncontaminated by suspicion on the part of the volunteers. I just don't think the minor semantic issue you are pointing out makes any difference.
aimai
|
|
aimai
Full Member
Posts: 172
|
Post by aimai on Feb 24, 2010 11:04:48 GMT -5
I think what I really want to say here is in response to Charis' point, and the point that others are making--this is not to forgive the actions of this husband/wife and their murder of their child. But it is to say that people get into situations in which they no longer grasp the obvious outcome of their actions.
These people obviously did not set out to kill their little girl--but they set themselves on a path where their incremental actions: one more blow, one more attempt at correction--would inevitably do so. Because they were so afraid of letting go, of allowing their child to develop naturally, of interacting with her in a non violent, non judgemental way, of losing control (as they saw it) of a difficult and complex process (education, acculturation.) For our friends here who have come out of the movement its pretty clear that *lowering the fear level*--lowering the fear of molestation, of the secular world, of disorder, of girlishness, of sexuality, of non christians, of childhood and its messiness are all ways of helping these men and women in the movement get out of their own trap. The saddest thing to me, in reading the testimonies of women here, is to see how easily people are seduced by their own good intentions and their own fears. The QF/Evangelical/Abusive world would be tiny beyond belief if it were merely made up of moral monsters. But its not. Its made up of people who are scared, hurting, frightened, easily manipulated who act out their fears on their own family members. Helping them leave their fears behind, and learn to manage the ambiguity and chaos of everyday life, is a better way to go than merely condemning them to outer darkness.
aimai
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Feb 24, 2010 11:13:59 GMT -5
I don't find the difference between negative reinforcement and punishment all that arcane myself. Negative reinforcement increases the target behavior. Punishment decreases the target behavior. Perhaps other people do find that difference arcane. At any rate, I take it that your response to my musing about why Milgram used the wrong term is that he didn't think it mattered given his subject population.
|
|
|
Post by charis on Feb 24, 2010 11:54:44 GMT -5
Thanks aimai for your insights. I agree. but Ive been the child who was beaten in the name of God and in that moment, the parent is more monster than human...than a parent. I'm sorry that happened to you, verklempt. Its very important for you to acknowledge the pain that your parents caused you. I believe its inherent in the Biblical concept of "honor your father and mother", where Honor in Hebrew is “weight”; “honoring” sees the other’s weight, their impact on us kābēd refers to the function of weight, however, it may be semantically ambivalent: the weight of something can be experienced positively or negatively. [and] “to honor,” i.e., “to lend someone weight” or “to acknowledge someone as weighty” in most passages. The Decalogue commands, “Honor your father and your mother” (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; cf. Mal 1:6); So when the Bible instructs us to “honor thy father and mother” this means that we need to acknowledge their “weight”, their impact on us, whether “experienced positively or negatively”. So HONOR them, acknowledge the impact they had upon you! the good, the bad, and the ugly… shedding light is good, healing. Darkness is not our friend. According to M. Scott Peck, what makes people truly evil is that they will never examine themselves, they are un-correctible, un-teachable. They will seek to eradicate evil from another but do not see the evil residing in their own heart. (If you are interested here is a link to a quote from his "People of the Lie" which I posted on the "Disciplining to Death" thread where he speaks of a murderous couple) Part of my own journey into self examination was precipitated by my oldest daughter (now 25) who was 14 at the time. I remember several occasions when I lost my temper with her, she looked into my eyes and said "I LOVE YOU MOM". My 14 yo was more mature than I. I remember when she was 18 and went to college and came home with all sorts of opinions contrary to her father's (which we were all well indoctrinated was "disrespectful"), my husband and I thought her Christian college had turned her into a "feminist". But, I got a little inkling of an idea that maybe it would be OK if I had some different opinions than my husband too...
|
|
|
Post by MoonlitNight on Feb 24, 2010 13:51:58 GMT -5
The picture of God that Brownwyn draws is simply not the picture I drew from the Bible or from my own spiritual life. And I was not the only one. Eventually that picture-- the picture of a God who is Love-- overwhelmed the picture that Maranatha painted. So it doesn't simply boil down to religion being bad because it can be used coercively. It can also encourage anti-coercive action. A lot depends on whether those who desire power and authority, are using religion as the ultimate booster pack for power-wielding-- or whether people are encouraged in some way towards individual self-empowerment in religion. Trust in God can be just as effective in giving courage to stand up against abusive authority-- when that authority ceases to be seen as spiritually legitimate. Trust in God sure can be empowering, and so can the Bible. I grew up on stories about how some Christians thought that loving our neighbour as ourselves, and how that in Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, meant that blacks and women ought to be treated like full human beings. Then they went out and did something about that. But there are several unfortunate counterforces. One is that there is an enormous industry of oppression using the same textbook, just different chapters, and who call themselves the same name as the ones who use the other parts about love and forgiveness. Another is the authority-following tendencies of human beings, especially the ones far enough out on the spectrum that they just assume that whatever their leader does is Good, even if it breaks all the rules for the followers. A lot of history could probably be seen as the conflict or seesawing between people blindly following authority of whatever stripe, and people questioning and thinking for themselves, and doing what they feel is right, instead of what the king or the preacher or their mom said is. Generally I think we do better when the questioning ones prevail, or at least have a swing vote.
|
|
|
Post by musicmom on Feb 24, 2010 14:02:26 GMT -5
Frankly, Im astounded by the people who seem to be justifying away the responsibility these monsters, yes I said it as that is how I see people who murder their children in the name of God, carry in this situation. I guess Im not enlightened enough to show love towards people who beat a seven year old child to death because she mispronounced a word. No, Ive not been the parent who beat a child in the name of God but Ive been the child who was beaten in the name of God and in that moment, the parent is more monster than human...than a parent. Taking it back to the Nazi analogy, the Nazi's who killed and tortured were held responsible for their actions...just as Hitler would have been had he not killed himself. Who was the greater evil? The mind behind the evil or those who carried it out? As I said before, I dont differentiate between the two, especially when it comes to the murder of a small child. And yes, I do think those parents are criminals. I can only hope the law continues to agree with me. I am not justifying them or advocating that they are not dealt with - where did you ever think I was? The only way adults are going to start taking this stuff seriously is for our society to start taking it seriously - I totally agree with you. I, also, have been the child beaten by parents. Why do you think that I remotely thought it was ok to do to my own child? Of course - it felt familiar and right to me. Unless someone can face and deal with her own abuse - as see it as abuse, not love - she will do it to her own child because that is "love" to her. A friend who was raised in a similar way I was once described to me a beating he got from his dad as "the cheapest lesson I ever learned". This is someone who has not come to terms with the fact he too was abused. He, as I did, allowed his spouse to browbeat his kids into obedient submission. Since he sees what his dad did as love, he is "loving" his kids in the same way. In the same way, I felt I was helping my child avoid being "bad" and eventually being thrown into hell for faults. Sure, I know better now - I know all about shame and projection, and developmental stages of childhood. I didn't know all that then. So, instead of just name-calling, maybe we could instead advocate awareness of the problem, protecting kids anyway necessary, but most of all - education of adults who are going to be parents. Marginalizing these people will not solve any problems - it is really too easy of a solution for such a systemic, pervasive problem.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 24, 2010 22:25:13 GMT -5
Off the top of my head, how I wrote my previous comments and not from quoting a reference, I don't know what term Milgram used in his work. I used the term "negative reinforcement" as a general descriptor for the sake of communicating the basic concept, I think after midnight in my neck of the woods.
Please don't attribute my general statement of the main elements of the study to poor Stanley! (It certainly was not positive reinforcement, though more specifically, I agree that it was punitive!)
You would have to look up the study itself or take a look at the Lucifer Effect to if you have a copy to figure out the specifics.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 24, 2010 23:02:29 GMT -5
And this is a moot point because there were NEVER any shocks delivered!!! There was no actual negative reinforcement of anyone, only actors pretending to be shocked.
It was touted as a study of memory and learning. The guy playing the researcher was an Irishman in his 40s, and the idea was that he was neutral in his behavior. Things were not necessarily stated connotatively as negative, but this is what the subject would have understood the "electric shocks" to be.
It was a study of behavior, compliance, consistency, commitment, and authority.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 25, 2010 0:51:39 GMT -5
One thing about this. Bronwyn said: So let's think about this idea: religious abusers believe that they and their children are subject to the ultimate authority, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. God is worse than the Gestapo: he is ALWAYS watching, so unless He happens to feel like being merciful, you will be eternally punished for every mistake, no matter how tiny. And of course God is always right; that's part of being God. Wouldn't you do anything, anything at all to keep your beloved child from that eternal punishment for the mistakes he or she is bound to make for being human? Even if it means hurting him or her? After all, it hurts less than the Pit, doesn't it?-- and I see her point. But when it came to the cult I was involved with, Maranatha Campus Ministries-- a group of dissenters who were in middle positions of authority (pastors of individual churches, but not in the upper core leadership ) came together in the end and essentially forced the dissolution of the group, and a mass return to sanity. One of the things that made this possible was that Maranatha's leaders, though they did use God's name to bolster their own authority and teachings, could never quite get away from the Protestant idea that individual laypeople could and should have their own spiritual lives, read and study the Bible themselves, etc. I do know that there came to be many areas in my own life where my own spiritual experiences and Bible study just did not jive with what the Maranatha leadership was saying-- so that when the middle leaders began to dissent, I and many others were ready and willing to dissent too. The picture of God that Brownwyn draws is simply not the picture I drew from the Bible or from my own spiritual life. And I was not the only one. Eventually that picture-- the picture of a God who is Love-- overwhelmed the picture that Maranatha painted. So it doesn't simply boil down to religion being bad because it can be used coercively. It can also encourage anti-coercive action. A lot depends on whether those who desire power and authority, are using religion as the ultimate booster pack for power-wielding-- or whether people are encouraged in some way towards individual self-empowerment in religion. Trust in God can be just as effective in giving courage to stand up against abusive authority-- when that authority ceases to be seen as spiritually legitimate. KR, in the time I have been following this blog, I have come to respect you and other thoughtful Christians for your beliefs, which do not accord with mine, but which you have obviously spent a lot of thought on. Unfortunately there are those, in addition to the Pearls and their ilk, who call themselves by the same faith that you do and propagate hate and discord. For example: State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God's punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.
He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.
www.newsleader.com/article/20100222/NEWS01/2220318 I can't express all the ways in which I think of this as a sick sentiment, but the point I would like to make is that there are truly unpleasant people who claim the same religion and are tarring all with the same filth. I realize that you and the other thoughtful believers are not responsible for their stupidity, but I have a fantasy (OK, I have boring fantasies) that the people who believe as you do will someday request that the haters all take a long walk off a short pier.
|
|
|
Post by coleslaw on Feb 25, 2010 8:53:46 GMT -5
And this is a moot point because there were NEVER any shocks delivered!!! There was no actual negative reinforcement of anyone, only actors pretending to be shocked. It was touted as a study of memory and learning. The guy playing the researcher was an Irishman in his 40s, and the idea was that he was neutral in his behavior. Things were not necessarily stated connotatively as negative, but this is what the subject would have understood the "electric shocks" to be. It was a study of behavior, compliance, consistency, commitment, and authority. The research design of the fake study is an important part of the research design of the real study. If the study subjects had not believed they were delivering real shocks, the experiment's results would not have been meaningful. So the fact that no one got shocked is not moot. The behavior of the study subjects had to be evaluated in the light of their belief that they were delivering real shocks, because otherwise their behavior is completely unremarkable. Apparently Milgram did use the correct term, "punishment" in the instructions his research subjects were given. I found my copy of Mistakes Were Made (but not by me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Eliot Aronson, which describes Milgrim's experiment on pp 37-38 and it describes the instructions given to the study participants as containing the phrase "to understand the role of punishment in learning." So that clears up what puzzled me.
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 25, 2010 10:52:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AustinAvery on Feb 25, 2010 11:24:42 GMT -5
"Ditto" to what Ambrosia said to krwordgazer and about that horse's rear end Bob Marshall. BTW, I read the story and Marshall maintains that nature takes its vengeance on a women who aborts her first pregnancy. But aren't the vast majority of abortions spontaneous, what we call miscarriages? So isn't he saying that nature (or does he mean God) takes vengeance on women--actually their next child--who have miscarriages? Wish I had an icon for a horse's rear end.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 25, 2010 15:44:04 GMT -5
I read the article about Marshall. It's disgusting. I realize that you and the other thoughtful believers are not responsible for their stupidity, but I have a fantasy (OK, I have boring fantasies) that the people who believe as you do will someday request that the haters all take a long walk off a short pier. I did notice that a good many of the comments were from Christians, saying in effect, exactly that. The thing that's really awful is that this kind of Christianity has hijacked Christianity's public voice to the point that this junk is just about all anyone can hear any Christians saying. The Christians who repudiate it are out-voiced by a vocal minority that has overtaken most Christian outlets to the media. Part of the reason is that the Christians who disagree with this sort of thing, also tend to disagree with the emphasis these Christians put on involvement in politics. And part of it may be that these outrageous voices sell newspapers/airtime, while the more reasonable/quieter Christian voices, just aren't as interesting/newsworthy.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 25, 2010 19:51:44 GMT -5
I wanted to find out if Marshall ever provided any support for his statements, and they have a summary paper on their website. Here is a summary of the research that Marshall says that he relies upon to draw his conclusions: delegatebob.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Future_Pregnancy_Complications_from_Induced_Abortion.pdfIf he's right, this is very significant. It's a shame that, if he is right, that it's not a concern for other groups that work with the disabled, etc. I haven't had a chance to look at it yet.
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Feb 25, 2010 20:44:33 GMT -5
I looked a little bit at the study-- but regardless of the results, this kind of emotionally loaded language by Marshall:
"The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children. . . "
has nothing to do with scientific studies, whatever their results. As such, it is of no use whatsoever except to increase the reputation of evangelical Christians for mean-spirited judgmentalism.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 25, 2010 20:50:27 GMT -5
This was the goofiest thing to read. First, In his official statement, he says that there are three specific problems that he names as "disabilities"" Low Birth Weight (PBW) Premature delivery Cerebral Palsy CP is the only disability in this list. These LBW and premature delivery are associated with other health problems, one of which is CP, but that is all LBW and prematurity. Those rates are elevated for people who have had previous abortions in general, but these things are not disabilities in and of themselves. In these two complications of pregnancy and delivery, there is no data that he provides that traces these general problems back to any specific disability. To make these claims, he would have to show a study of a population where they considered the association between CP in that group of women and previous abortions, specifically an aborted firstborn, according to his claims. Why did he not just say that there was an increased risk for pregnancy complications in general? Now, there are slightly higher rates of problems after abortion, there are some studies that show fertility problems, and there are studies that also show breast cancer links. I saw some of the pregnancy related data (abrupteo, etc.) in this report, but nothing about first born children and CP specifically. In fact, the only places CP is mentioned in this paper lists these specifics: - Children born after IVF have a 3.7 increased risk of cerebral palsy.
- There was a general citation of CP being associated with LBW and premature births, but this is true of all.
- They cited increased risk of CP in multiple birth pregnancies as opposed to single birth pregnancies.
- There is an anecdotal report about one single CP case, noting that it was also associated with uterine rupture after IVF. The CP is likely more related to the uterine rupture and other factors; and therefore, the CP is not an uncomplicated link to IVF risk. (And there was nothing that I saw was related to a previous abortion. It was an IVF case.
Taking that back to what he said: Children who are born and follow abortion are being born disabled, Cerebral Palsy being the only real disability he claims? Only as much as CP is a risk in any premature delivery and as it is a finding with any LBW infant. What he can say is that multiple birth pregnancies and IVF births have an increased risk of CP, but those studies have nothing to do with a previous abortion. Unless he is making an unfounded assumption that because women after abortions have fertility problems, they are going to seek out IVF, then makes generalizations about IVF. That's all I can figure out. And I've looked all over Pub Med for anything that looks anything like the data he's talking about including LBW, premature delivery and CP maternal factors stated about 5 different ways a piece. Again, there is a general increase in the incidence of problems, but based on what he listed and this article and the nonexistent research, I didn't see anything that supports what he's saying, aside from the higher risk for LBW and prematurity increases, only a very small portion of which result in CP. And I guess he's just assuming that people who do abort, always abort their firstborn. But he cites no data about this, either. If anyone else can read it and point out what I've missed, I'd be happy to amend what I've written here. The question is whether Marshall couldn't read this and discern what his report means, or he's just playing games here with intent to be disingenuous.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 25, 2010 21:01:15 GMT -5
This is the kind of thing that I really hate that makes Christians look bad.
Research is like hermeneutics when studying the Bible. You can only say that it says what it actually says. No more, no less. You can certainly expect to see trends or clustering of multiple problems.
For example, kids with ADD tend to have other associated problems. If you have one, your likelihood to have others is greatly increased than if you didn't have the ADD. (Things like also having sensory integration disorder, tourettes, irlen syndrome and such are significantly higher if you have ADD.) But that does not mean that they are absolutely related or that there is a direct connection, so you call it a comorbidity. That is worlds away from doing a study, finding two related factors and then testing them for statistical significance. You essentially throw every mathmatical test you can come up with after you account for and eliminate from consideration every mitigating factor that is not contributing to the condition.
What this guy did to come up with this is worse than fantasy. All he can say is that abortion increases pregnancy problems and health problems in women. Why was he not carrying on about women getting breast cancer years after abortion as his primary concern? They cite in that paper that political pressure and conspiracy interfered with the collection and reporting of data that would show the connection. So why was he not in state senate carrying on that planned parenthood was giving women breast cancer, hypertension and strokes?
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 28, 2010 20:48:02 GMT -5
This list is VERY encouraging: www.tulipgirl.com/index.php/2010/02/who-is-speaking-out-against-abuse/Christians ~ conservatives, homeschoolers, etc. ~ who are speaking out against No Greater Joy Ministry's child training methods. This is going to make it much harder for them to sell their materials as word spreads and typing in "Train Up a Child" or "Michael Pearl" in Google results in page after page of warnings regarding child abuse and even death.
|
|
|
Post by tapati on Feb 28, 2010 22:45:30 GMT -5
For all those who might view this topic and have questions about what to do instead of spanking, here's one vital resource: www.supernanny.com/
|
|
autumn
Junior Member
Posts: 56
|
Post by autumn on Feb 28, 2010 22:50:19 GMT -5
So this Bob Marshall thinks CP happens because a woman had a therapeutic abortion??
I'm just floored!! That's the most ridiculous statement ever!
Most CP happens because a neonate had a hypoxic incident and a brain bleed as a result, This can happen from any traumatic birth and I can only imagine it used to happen more before we understood the etiology. It's only been recently that they discovered the brain bleed issue because that explained why neonates that didn't appear to have a hypoxic incident still went on to develop CP. It also explains why some neonates who did have hypoxic incidents did not go on to develop CP
Now of course there's the fact that low birth weight and premature babies are more prone to hypoxemea which can lead to bleeds and CP. Some women who resort to ARTs suffer difficult pregnancies that end in prematurity, but I just cannot see where a history of theraputic abortion ties into this...it's completely illogical!
All pregnancy loss is abortion, a spontaneous abortion is a miscarriage and a therapeutic abortion is when the pregnancy is intentionally ended for whatever reason.
|
|
|
Post by asteli on Mar 3, 2010 1:37:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by krwordgazer on Mar 3, 2010 2:20:14 GMT -5
That is unbelievable. Children died in agony because their parents followed his books, and he's "laughing."
Trying to distance himself from what he would call the misapplication of his teachings, is one thing. Acting like he doesn't even notice that there are dead and wounded children, is another thing entirely.
I feel sick.
|
|