tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post359252010822631041..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: God, $20, Skepchick, Dickishness ...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47259268879915102842011-03-15T00:38:35.059-05:002011-03-15T00:38:35.059-05:00After a fifteen minute debate with my fiance, he f...After a fifteen minute debate with my fiance, he finally cowed me into conceding that I should have written "Jane Eyre" after Charlotte Bronte. He informs me that although Ms Bronte did write the quote, it is disingenuous to pull a quote from a novel without specifying that it is, in fact, from a novel, and not just something the author said. As an author, I am still reticent in my belief that she did write the words no matter what...but my head hurts from arguing...so I'm admitting defeat anyhow.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00914973020784758947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87129199262035378882011-03-14T23:47:41.676-05:002011-03-14T23:47:41.676-05:00I know this debate is like a month old...but I tho...I know this debate is like a month old...but I thought I'd throw in my two cents, anyhow. <br /><br />I completely disagree that this was dickish in any way. I do not think that he was degrading them at all. I had heard about this whole controversy from my fiance and I had been picturing the Phelps family or the God Warrior ranting and raving and resorting to the typical cursing and name calling that a lot of militant theists seem to resort to. <br /><br />Instead, I saw a very even-tempered debate! I read the comments in here before watching the video, and I feel as though a lot of you aren't looking past the "homelessness" of these people. But goodness gracious...they are still people! I don't think these people seemed terribly irrational. Yes, I do think it's dogmatic to think that crossing out the word "God" is equal to the complete denial of their faith, but I don't see this as Mike dangling a $20 bill over their heads and imploring them to roll over and speak. I think they debated in a fairly calm, reasonable, HUMAN manner. I thought the fact that Mike offered the debate to them in the first place was an awesome equalizer. It is very easy to dismiss people with signs that begging on the side of the road. Here in L.A. people walk past them, ignore them, treat them like part of the scenery. I think this is a great way to show that these people are real people, with real thoughts, and real beliefs. Yes, we may disagree with them, but how is believing in god when you're homeless so much worse than believing in god when you are a millionaire living in some palatial mansion? <br /><br />I didn't think Mike came off like a jerk. Sure, he approached them, but it's not like he got all up in their personal space and demanded they change the sign. He showed all his cards to begin with, and kicked off the debate from there. I don't see how it's really any different than debating people who call in to this show; only that this family is in reduced circumstances and he approached them.<br /><br />Neither party insulted the other. They made their cases reasonably. They didn't yell or scream or taunt. I have friends that won't debate me in such civilized tones. Heck...Ray Comfort isn't as civilized as these people.<br /><br />Personally, just from seeing this video, this family doesn't strike me as super militant. Sure, 20 bucks is great when you're living out of a motor home...but there are certain ideals that people won't shake from, even if they aren't fundamentalist or extremists. Some people who are rational about certain issues can have totally irrational reactions to others. <br /><br />My naval veteran father was on the muslim-hating, no "ground-zero mosque" bandwagon until I told him a story about a Muslim American soldier I know who is deeply upset over the hate spewing at him from the very country he is fighting to protect. My dad's strongly held racist views were swayed because of his devotion to the military.<br /><br />Sure, I think the family is terribly silly for holding their superstition up so high...I probably would have appeased Mike for the twenty bucks; however, I feel like the majority of the commenters here are only looking at this from their own non-homeless, computer-having, comfortably fed points of view and dismissing the possibility that they might have absolutely no clue as to these people's thought processes. Just because we think they should be salivating over a measly $20 doesn't mean that they should be. People are getting offended on their behalf when I think these folks handled themselves just fine. We cannot dehumanize these people simply because they are theists nor because they are homeless. <br /><br />"I should never mistake informality for insolence, one I rather like, the other nothing free-born would submit to, even for a salary.”<br />--Charlotte BronteAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00914973020784758947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-4818669388367952762011-03-04T17:44:22.561-06:002011-03-04T17:44:22.561-06:00"It is also kinda diskish for someone to beg ..."It is also kinda diskish for someone to beg in the name of "God". The "God Bless" line defiantly has the effect of pushing a believer towards guilt. From that view point Mike was only being a dick back."<br /><br />And it could just as easily be what it appears to be: While meaningless (to us), for them, saying "God Bless" is a way to express well wishes, thanjs, etc. It's merely the expression of positive sentiments.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37091466829239002842011-03-04T15:41:51.668-06:002011-03-04T15:41:51.668-06:00First of all, Jim there is a major difference betw...First of all, Jim there is a major difference between what Mike did and "asking a homeless guy to flap his arms and cluck like a chicken for $20."<br /><br />That being said the video is very dickish and in poor taste. I would never do it, however I am glad that some one is. I hate this whole attitude that "we athiest" must tip toe around and be respectful of others irrational beliefs. Theists have the right to believe. They are not entitled to respect. <br />It is also kinda diskish for someone to beg in the name of "God". The "God Bless" line defiantly has the effect of pushing a believer towards guilt. From that view point Mike was only being a dick back.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11550466773881874181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-37623020631482976082011-02-21T20:49:27.190-06:002011-02-21T20:49:27.190-06:00I think at this point (after reading many comments...I think at this point (after reading many comments) I agree with Mic here. Mike wasn't really telling these people why he thought they were being irrational. <br /><br />And maybe he shouldn't have to but obviously religious people think that their thoughts are rational and just or else they wouldn't believe them. <br /><br />I'm also torn about my opinion on the video. I guess I would lean more towards getting the point of it if Mike had taken the time to explain why these thoughts are deluded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87928812558193525922011-02-21T00:54:11.740-06:002011-02-21T00:54:11.740-06:00YOU SAID "...doesn't seem to get the impo...YOU SAID "...doesn't seem to get the important meaning behind this (that religion encourages poor decision making - to the point that a starving family will turn down money"<br /> I have worked in social services and I can tell you those people are not "starving" They are probably on a housing list as we speak. They get WIC and if they are off of WIC as thier chidl is now 4.. they get food stamps. They make their money off of people like Mike, who want to show the poor uneducated, misguided homelss people a better way of living and think that offering them money to get them to stop at what they are doing will work...NEVER does. The "homelss" pan handelers are very good at their job, and it is a job. Can you make $200.00 in an hour; tax free? They can. And often do. I am surprised this video has not gone viral yet... look at the radio anouncer guy.... Mike is missing an edge some how...mintzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15003373520961594474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59377866703314389232011-02-20T20:37:02.874-06:002011-02-20T20:37:02.874-06:00I think the biggest issue with the video is this:
...I think the biggest issue with the video is this:<br /><br /><b>Is his conclusion justified</b>?<br /><br />They refuse to do what he asks, and he concludes that their religious indoctrination has clouded their judgement and stood in the way of what should have been a simple, pragmatic, utilitarian decision. <br /><br />The problem, as I see it, is that his experimental methodology, if you will, was not sufficient to draw said conclusion. There are other plausible alternatives that have nothing to do with religion. <br /><br />His conclusion, while not untrue in the sense that religion DOES lead to irrational, and even harmful decisions/actions, is, in my view, unsupported, and likely biased. <br /><br />As far as the 'dick' condemnation goes, I'm torn.magx01https://www.blogger.com/profile/14831638782847911405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-85000765889952310222011-02-20T10:07:58.574-06:002011-02-20T10:07:58.574-06:00Hi i agree with alot of mat is saying here. i have...Hi i agree with alot of mat is saying here. i have watch the video alot (because mike asked me to comment on his videos and put it up on my site) and i find that he was being a slight dick and knows it. the homeless family wasn't being offered $20 for them to loose their faith thats asinine. all it shows is that even when Christians hits rock bottom they will still cling to their repugnant believes even to the point of letting themselves starve.Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15920326408068306672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73880254271842403742011-02-20T06:59:31.995-06:002011-02-20T06:59:31.995-06:00Undeserved reverence.... That is all.Undeserved reverence.... That is all.DarkEternalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10993305707054859612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-59904901366894006042011-02-20T06:21:17.869-06:002011-02-20T06:21:17.869-06:00I think this was more of a stunt for the benefit o...I think this was more of a stunt for the benefit of Mike's viewers rather than being an honest exchange with the people he confronted. From what we saw in the video he didn't explain himself very well at all. Mike made assertions and expressed general opinions but didn't back them up with careful reasoning in the portion of the video where he talks with the family. He didn't demonstrate how his ideas were the more rational ones and therefore why they should accept his proposition.<br /><br />I understand that from the narrow view of the video, this wasn't really about compassion and charity but it is a subject difficult to dismiss given the apparent circumstances of the people involved. What the homeless man was asking for was charity. What Mike was offering was money in exchange for them compromising a firmly held belief on camera in order for Mike to demonstrate a point about religious irrationality.<br /><br />What I think this farce turned into was a couple of underprivileged people in an unfortunate situation trying to maintain some semblance of dignity. To my mind, waving money in the face of a needy person while placing conditions on it is a form of abasement. I saw the tearing up of the sign in exchange for the money to be as much a demonstration of the right to be ungrateful for an act of "charity" as it was a determination to uphold a religious position. After all, an act of pure altruism negates the expectation of gratitude or acquiescence from the recipient of your charity.Michttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01668635750439163302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-82117653960064762462011-02-20T05:59:41.604-06:002011-02-20T05:59:41.604-06:00The video, and almost all of the commentary around...The video, and almost all of the commentary around it, show a terrible misunderstanding of religion by skeptics.<br /><br />The people in the video are not stupid. They know what a cheque for $1,000,000 means. They also know what $20 means. What this video shows is that the skeptic doesn't know what religion means that makes the three letters "G O D" more valuable than $20 or a cheque for $1,000,000. And, worse, it confirmed those people's belief in the value of those three letters when they were thus confronted with a (self-confessed) jerk.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15572634428631506907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71846287252058309722011-02-20T00:48:46.155-06:002011-02-20T00:48:46.155-06:00@Jim Royal
I honesty can't see the problem wit...@Jim Royal<br />I honesty can't see the problem with this situation. Sure he could have been more polite about the whole subject but it's just one three letter word. True it's something they feel deeply about but so what? I'm deeply Atheist/Agnostic (I'm willing to accept said God if there is good solid evidence of it, not just a 2000 year old book full of horse sh*t) but I would say there are/there is God(s)for $20. I'd say the words emptily but I'd say em.<br /><br />You say it's just a way of getting them to embarrass themselves for $20; maybe it is and maybe it isn't. But regardless it goes against common sense not to when you need money that badly-you give the example of making a homeless guy act like a chicken for $20 in the middle of the street. I can tell you right now that for $20 I'd do that no questions asked.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00268441355955338991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62101825507187173392011-02-19T23:28:01.125-06:002011-02-19T23:28:01.125-06:00@Chris
In the case of Rich, i think context and i...@Chris<br /><br />In the case of Rich, i think context and intention is relevant. Ricky Gervais has made a career of humiliating people for entertainment, and I'd personally love to hang out with the guy. The Chaser guys on CNNNN (or say John Stewart and the Daily Show for the American commentators) humiliate allot of people too with the intention of social commentary (which i think is similar to what Mike is doing here) and i wouldn't say either of them are comparable to Rich.<br /><br />Also, pointing out that a short silly lie is nothing to Matt is the point of the whole video. That they think the fairy tail is so real they will turn down much needed money to feed their child.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-17102522313117300292011-02-19T23:10:43.989-06:002011-02-19T23:10:43.989-06:00It depends how you look at it. The person is tradi...It depends how you look at it. The person is trading dignity for money. And the other person is trading money for some sort of twisted humour, feelings of superiority or to make a point. Why's this not like any other trade deal. Both parties know the score. As a homeless person I am sure they would prefer to stay in the market for dignity trading rather than not receiving money at all.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581040765283125021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-46751429823852033402011-02-19T22:48:45.363-06:002011-02-19T22:48:45.363-06:00Let me tell you a true story, I was out with a few...Let me tell you a true story, I was out with a few friends, including a guy that I didn't know all that well, Rich(friend of a friend), at first he seemed like a nice guy, but then when we were walking down the street, a guy walked up to the group asking for money, he was clearly homeless, and Rich demanded he dance, the guy did so, and Rich held out a dollar, and when the guy went to reach for it, Rich threw it on the ground. <br /><br />Did he ask the guy to do anything all that dickish? After all, doing a silly little jig is nothing when you're hungry and its cold out. And all Rich wanted was a little laugh. Sure he's a dick, but he did give him a dollar. <br /><br />Is there anyone reading this who agrees with this last paragraph? If so, I sure hope I don't ever have the displeasure of meeting you, just as I hope not to see Rich again. <br /><br />I understand that it illustrates a point, but that doesn't make it right. Matt saying that the situation in reverse wouldn't bother him isn't anywhere near relevant. Clearly professing belief to him would be just a short silly lie. But to these people, their "fairy tale" is real. And this Mike guy is making them do something they don't like, and holding their need of his money over their heads in order to compromise their ideals. It doesn't matter how much sense their ideals make, it matters that they have them. <br />If Matt really wants to put himself in their shoes, he should imagine himself having to do something that would shame him for compromising his ideals, not something that wouldn't bother him at all, like telling a little lie.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03392258829055207408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-28417167327985659722011-02-19T22:45:11.971-06:002011-02-19T22:45:11.971-06:00Martin,
Right, but once again cutting out God from...Martin,<br />Right, but once again cutting out God from the bottom of the page and crossing God off are not the same things. <br /><br />Earlier I stated:<br /><i>”First off, Mike wasn’t asking them to cross out God, take the money, then junk the sign. Implicit within his request to “cross out God”, was to continue holding up the sign with God crossed out. That’s really the deal here, and that’s how these two folks were interpreting him. <br /><br />Second, what does it mean to cross out God in such a way? How would that be interpreted by people who saw it? I imagine most people would interpret that to mean something along the lines of, “God sucks”. <br /><br />Third, there’s clearly a bit of marketing going on here. Sure enough the family believes in God, but they also know putting “God Bless” on there couldn’t hurt. I’m sure it drums up a little business.<br /><br />So how about an analogy:<br />Suppose the sign ended with “America is great”, rather than “God Bless”. And suppose, following point two (considering also point three) that we were more explicit with our suggestion. e.g. instead of just crossing out “America is great”, we asked them to change the sign too, “America sucks”. I mean really, would the impact of crossing out “America is great” be any different than explicitly stating that “America sucks”?<br /><br />Essentially your sign (which is a marketing tool you’re using to get money) has been turned into a tool that also discriminates against (not to mention offends) your potential customer base, as well as offends the sentiments and beliefs of the one holding it. Simply put, it’s not worth 20 bucks. The business you’ll loose as a result of the offensive sign far outweighs the petty 20 smackers.”</i> <br /><br />Again, cutting God off the bottom of the page does nothing, and in fact they do end up doing that as clearly they see no harm in it. The many philosophical variations people have of Gods existence (ontological, transcendent, pragmatic, non-realistic, etc..) is irrelevant to the fact that Christianity as an institution (just like America) is a real thing that exists. To advertise God (struck out on a sign) is to cast aside the community you’re reaching out to (and are a part of) for help. My point is a pragmatic one – which is to say that not crossing God out is not irrational at all for the same reason it wouldn’t be rational to carry a sign saying “America sucks, could you please help my family by giving me money”. If Mike would have started his video by just asking them to cut God out of the sign, I wouldn’t even have jumped into the conversation. Understand that Mike wasn’t in effect asking them to deny God, or be purposely sacrilegious, he was asking them to alienate themselves from their community, their tribe, whathaveyou, in a time when they were most in need.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35170091084611953462011-02-19T22:42:20.577-06:002011-02-19T22:42:20.577-06:00Ok, so I have watched the video, and i have read t...Ok, so I have watched the video, and i have read the full post, though i must admit i've only read about half of this comment thread. I personally didn't have a problem with the video at all, however i couldn't possibly tell you whether that is because there are no serious moral SNAFU in it, or whether i've just been so desensitized to this kind of thing by the likes of Jackass, UFC and the multitude of shitty wife swapping shows on television these days.<br /><br />What i will say is that i think it was a pretty weak point he was trying to make. Christians (particularly those who've fallen on hard times) don't want to give up their faith.... no shit... In fact, i think i need to call out Matt on something he wrote earlier on relating to this:<br /><br />"Additionally, I'm willing to bet that a good portion of religious references on homeless signs are there because they're effective and not because the individual actually believes them."<br /><br />Something like 85% of americans identify as being christian. And when you isolate sub groups at the lower end of the education and economic spectrum, that percentage only goes up. I think there are allot of homeless signs that have religious references because they're effective AND they also believe them. I have no doubt that some fit into the category of pure marketing but I think its a pretty unreasonable to think its "a good portion".<br /><br />Personally i think the video would have been far more effective and interesting if he had actually focused on the point that allot of other people are mentioning in response. Christians will regularly ransom a sandwich for a sermon, what would the reaction be if an atheist did the same thing. Even from the atheist community the backlash seems pretty severe. Why is it so widely considered socially acceptable for once group of people to act this way (christians) but not others (atheists)? I think this would have been a far more interesting point in my opinion anyway.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-16925132259180428852011-02-19T21:55:38.302-06:002011-02-19T21:55:38.302-06:00I think the main issue is weighing up the benefits...I think the main issue is weighing up the benefits of this video versus the repercussions. Yes it makes the point about the rationality of religious belief. However I object to the video because the actual video along with how he conducts himself in it is going to do more damage to atheism than his weak point is going to change any minds. If he did the same to some highly regarded professor I think the video would have some merit, but as it is he just gets some people who appear to not be particularly intelligent to show their irrational decision making process. Have a medal!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581040765283125021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-69396934070081410122011-02-19T21:42:05.603-06:002011-02-19T21:42:05.603-06:00Andrew: But you seem to only be focusing on the pe...Andrew: <i>But you seem to only be focusing on the perceived (and perhaps ridiculous) ontological status of the particular belief (which is quite widely varied) and completely ignoring the social status and institution where those beliefs are acted out in.</i><br /><br />I'm not ignoring it. Quite the opposite in fact, I'm all too conscious of it, as I have been in 10+ years of atheist activism. I think it's the "social status and institution" that keeps such dangerous irrationality alive that people need to realize is false, and wrong, and should be disposed of. In other words, here are people who think revering an imaginary god is more important than doing what is practical and necessary for their family's well being. Instead of <i>respecting</i> and <i>acknowledging</i> and <i>resisting any possible rudeness toward</i> the institution that has legitimized and mainstreamed such lunacy, we should be exposing and moving to eradicate it through education and awareness.<br /><br />Naturally one isn't going to do that all at once, with a single book or blog or video. But the accumulation of all these things aids in consciousness-raising, and time will do the rest.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53129626709706088112011-02-19T21:40:33.736-06:002011-02-19T21:40:33.736-06:00Martin, you state:
"Crossing God out, cutting...Martin, you state:<br /><i>"Crossing God out, cutting his name from the sign, whatever — it's all the same in the end.</i><br /><br />No, Martin, it's not the same, and that's the point you're missing. See my comments several posts back....Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-66788937968220038092011-02-19T21:20:00.239-06:002011-02-19T21:20:00.239-06:00Andrew: You also jumped to the chase and went righ...Andrew: <i>You also jumped to the chase and went right to “cutting out the bottom of the sign” (in your comment), which they did agree to do. However that isn’t what he initially asked them to do, so in essence I don’t think you’re really appreciating the situation in full.</i><br /><br />Thanks Andrew, but I think I have it down pretty well. Crossing God out, cutting his name from the sign, whatever — it's all the same in the end. Revering an imaginary being over doing what's right for the well being of your family is an irrational decision, regardless of how big a jerk Mike may or may not have been in how he chose to make the point.<br /><br />You can't really consider God to as equally conceptual and imaginary as America (or any other nation) here. Inasmuch as it is a nation in a world of nations, recognized by other nations, with a Constitution and set of laws, and citizens and leaders and borders and what have you, America exists well enough. America may be just an idea that was brought into being by mutual consent. But unlike God, it's a tangible, natural, non-supernatural idea that you can find on a map. And its people created it, whereas theists claim their God created them. I'd call that a non-trivial difference.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-62687440393767518762011-02-19T21:00:13.422-06:002011-02-19T21:00:13.422-06:00Andrew I think you're missing the point.
I an...Andrew I think you're missing the point.<br /><br />I and I think others that share Martin's opinion understand that to religious people it's like asking them to remove America or any other real social/cultural institution.<br /><br />If Mike thinks he is going to convince believers that their belief is absurd with this video I would say he's picked the wrong target audience. To me it's more likely that people who agree that god does not exist but think it's harmless for others to believe in god would be a better target audience. To them the difference is clear (valid principles vs. imaginary deity/principle) but they don't connect those differences to differences in outcome.<br /><br />That's not to say this is brilliantly effective at that but that if it does anything, in my eyes it simply offers one concrete example of harm cause by belief in something false - as long as they don't get stuck on "omg he's such a dick" in the first place. It's not there to convince believers that their belief is false.Robert Ronald Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10897732499392751223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-38415469342884855572011-02-19T20:54:55.432-06:002011-02-19T20:54:55.432-06:00Maybe I'm just cynical, but turning down this ...Maybe I'm just cynical, but turning down this $20 may be a strictly business oriented decision. And a good one at that. Now every christian that sees this video will be much more inclined to line their purses. It may be a very rational and reasonable thing without having to invoke the supernatural. I wouldn't be surprised if they made more than me for a time. Weren't they on TV also? I don't think it's an urban legend that some more accomplished jobless sign holders make decent money, all under the table of course.<br /><br /> I feel for the kid, though. I wonder what school district they park in? I'm sure he helps bring in the money. Does this make me jaded or just a dick? I can't see the people who deserve legitimate assistance through all the outstretched hands.rrpostalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03336728549010108830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53942828699426209912011-02-19T19:16:31.380-06:002011-02-19T19:16:31.380-06:00PPS Martin,
I think once you get past the initial ...PPS Martin,<br />I think once you get past the initial crust of transcendentalism - those that think God actually has some sort of actual existence per se, or essentially – and if we can even cast that aside for a moment, you’ll find that getting people to drop God out of their discourse and asking them to abandon their religion is no different than asking someone to abandon their country (America) and democracy. But you seem to only be focusing on the perceived (and perhaps ridiculous) ontological status of the particular belief (which is quite widely varied) and completely ignoring the social status and institution where those beliefs are acted out in.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40831061198012944122011-02-19T18:59:43.777-06:002011-02-19T18:59:43.777-06:00PS Martin,
You also jumped to the chase and went r...PS Martin,<br />You also jumped to the chase and went right to “cutting out the bottom of the sign” (in your comment), which they did agree to do. However that isn’t what he initially asked them to do, so in essence I don’t think you’re really appreciating the situation in full.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.com