Multiplicity and Religion

Some multiple systems have one common faith in which they find relief. For example, they are professing christians, and all find support from their common adherence to the Lord. Other systems, however, have more than one religion or spiritual covinction amongst their members.

In my own case, as a whole, I identify as agnostic. However, different parts have different views on religion. This is in fact the reason I identify as agnostic rather than atheist. If I had to go with the majority of my system members’ opinion, I would be an atheist, since two of the adult parts are atheists and most children and teens have no interest in religion.

There are only two insiders who pursue a faith, and they don’t pursue the same religion. Carol is a liberal christian, who feels at home in churches like the United Church of Christ. Elena, on the other hand, has her own spirituality, which borrows from buddhsim, New Age, and metaphysical christianity. She believes in reincarnation, for example, but she also sort of believes in certain forms of alternative healing. She in fact at one point wanted to pursue an education as an aromatherapist, but Clarissa, Carol and Morgan, who all wanted to study psychology, overruled her.

It can be difficult to have contrasting faiths in a multiple system, since parts may try to convert each other. So far, only Carol has sort of tried to convert me to christianity, but that stemmed from a fear of hell, which the UCC as far as I can tell doesn’t take too seriously. Also, we probably wouldn’t be accepted into organized religion, if only one part holds that faith. This is one reason we all – except for Carol, who would love to go to church – reject organized religious congegregations.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts on a Sermon

Last Sunday, I went to church with a friend, who is a member in some type of pentecostal church. Oh well, it calls itself evangelical, but I found out that this is one of the names commonly used by pentecostal churches in the Netherlands, because of the negative, sect-like connotation to pentecostalism. In her church, the minister held a sermon based on readings fron Jonah. I always thought that the tale of Jonah and the whale was just a children’s game, but it is apparently based on the Bible. Jonah is ordered by God to go to some non-believing city to preach, and indeed heads off, but goes instead to another city. While on the boat to that city, God causes a storm that almost breaks the ship. Everyone on board prays to their respective gods, except for Jonah, who is asleep down in the ship. After nothing works, they figure out that Jonah must be the cause of the storm, and they throw him overboard. Jonah is then eaten by a fish and stays in its stomach for three days and three nights. While there, he starts to pray, and God causes the fish to vomit and spit Jonah out on a beach. Then, God orders Jonah to go to the non-believing city again, and he goes and preaches, but only the bad news about God’s judgment. However, the people in that city have heard that Jonah drowned and now see him in their city alive, and it gets them all to convert to I assume that must be judaism since it’s in the old testament. The point of the sermon was that God is calling you, and you can listen or decide to turn your back. If you turn your back, that’s fine, but you will likely wander seeking another path to follow – like Jonah, who didn’t choose to just stay home, but rather went onto a boat to another city rather than the one God commanded him to go to. The world can help you, of course – like in the story of Jonah, when he arrived at the harbor, there was a ship to the city he wanted to go to immediately -, but it’s the question whether the world will help you keep on the right track. However, God supposedly isn’t a god who will give up on every human who ever turns their back onto Him – after all, even the most faithful believers will sometimes not listen (Jonah used to be a faithful follower) -, but He will keep calling you and hoping you’ll come to Him again – but this may happen at the moment when you’re most down in the depths of where you could get in this world.

There was some emphasis, as I found out there generally is in pentecostalism, on the dichotomy between God and satan (often referred to as “the world”, as if the world as a whole is bad): you follow either one, or the other, and you choose whether you want to be helped by God, or by “the world”, assuming “the world” will only help you get into trouble (with a reference to some parable). The minister referred to it as “conscience”, which comes from “knowing together”: with whom do you want to have common knowledge? There’s always somewhere some person/entity who will approve of whatever you decide to be right for you. The thing with the concept of “the world” as one bad thing, like satan, however, confuses me: firstly, it erroneously connotes that no non-Christian can have morality, because it is eitehr (the christian) God or satan. This may be true from a religious point of view, in that no doing good can be good enough without Jesus Christ due to generational curse, but in practical life of course it’s nonsensical. But secondly, more importantly, is that there is not one single road “the world” will lead you onto. Actually, this is the very problem with relying on “the world” for your decisions about right and wrong and your destined direction: which part of “the world” will you follow? The alleged wandering over the earth that satan is supposed to do, would be totally illogical if it were just what being evil, or not being a christian, does to you, but it is not so illogical given how most human connections in this world work: most people are eager to be there for one another, as long as they can find enough common ground to stand on. This was actually what touched me the most: there is no being in the world who will be there for another truly as they are.

Now, in the pentecostal church, neither is God. Even though pentecostals emphasize the personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, there’s no way that they will accept that humans come to Jesus as they are. Not that they should lie to God – one of the other points of the sermon was that God, being omniscient, will know that sinners are sinful even if they pretend in their religious behaviors to be the superlative of piety -, but of course they should first stop sinning and start obeying God, hopefully through their conviction that this is the right thing to do, not because God commands them to do so. Pentecostals take the Bible very literally, or at least, that’s what I read when I read up on this movement. I am not sure how this goes for this particular church or minister, but I for one will not take the Bible’s truths about right and wrong and the practical meaning of one’s life experiences as absolute and eternal truths. Therefore, I don’t think a literalist will understand why the sermon touched me, or rather, they will think they understand and try to convert me, because, after all, the fact that this sermon touches me proves that I am touched by God, like Jonah, in the deepest depth of my life, and should finally come and listen to Him and He will drag me out of this horrible state like he got Jonah out of the fish. In this very abstract sense, it will not hurt me: the worst that could happen, if I came to the christian God, is that I would stir up fury in the Invisible Pink Unicorn and She would make holes in all my socks. I have logical objections to coming to some particular organized religion – after all, just because a religion has 1.9 billion followers, doesn’t mean it’s the truth (in ancient Greece, the whole world the Greeks knew had their religion, and if they had had the means to go on mission, they’d have “evangelized” [or its ancient Greek equivalent] the rest of the world). But I have more practical objections to what sharing my views would get other people to think of me.

The thing is, of course it’s true that following “the world” will mean you wander. Some do it figuratively; I do it literally. Now that I have a home to go to if I get unquiet on the ward, it’s said to be all fine, but last year, the exact same behavior landed me on the police station several times and was called dangerous by my doctor. I do it figuratively, too, and the end result is a year and counting on the locked ward. I don’t think that if I suddenly start praying to God and coming to some pentecostal church and whatever, it will be solved. I take religious texts – and philosophical texts – to hold metaphysical meaning, not literal meaning. After all, Jonah could never have been in a fish for three days and three nights. But then, well… yes… so I can’t follow the whole world. This has nothing to do with religion; it’s simply impossible. And who will I follow then? Not some pentecostal minister, who is as much a human being as every other human being in my life; the simple fact that he claims to preach God’s word, does not cause him to be the keeper of truth. Well, it’s kind of, well, complicated, since there is no-one in this world who is the keeper of truth. Of course, the simplest answer is, follow your own path. A hell of a lot easier said than done.

Read Full Post »

Punished for Being too Tolerant?

A few weeks ago, an Ontario facility for people with developmental disabilities, Christian Horizons, was penalized by the Human Rights Tribunal for having discriminated against gays. The reason was that they have a Lifestyle Morality Statement (LMS) that prohibits such activities as lying, premarital sex, illegal drug use and homosexual behavior. A woman was employed by the agency, signed the LMS, but later entered a lesbian relationship anyway. She was disciplined by the agency, then resigned and took Christian Horizons to court.

There are several interesting issues surrounding this case. Firstly, of course, the LMS may be discriminatory, but the former employee signed it anyway. I’m not sure what legisliation is like in Canada, but in the Netherlands, such Statements are invalid if they violate law, even if they’ve been signed. I am not sure, however, how strict non-discrimination legislation is. I have, for example, seen many job offerings that require applicants to be of a certain religion. As far as I understand it, this is acceptable only if the employer has strong reasons to discriminate, and they ought to make these reasons clear and may of course be taken to the Commission for Equal Treatment (our anti-discrimination tribunal) for this.

In Ontario, apparently, an agency is allowed to discriminate only if it only serves people of that particular religion or race or whatever. For example, if Christian Horizons had required that clients adhere to the LMS, too, then they would’ve been eligible for exemption from non-discrimination legislation, cause then they would be serving only an exclusive group of people. However, now that they serve all developmentally disabled people, regardless of religion, race, or even sexual orientation, they are not allowed to discriminate against their employees, either. This may be a useful way of preserving religious freedom while protecting people against discrimination, but I can understand that it sends the message that if only Christian Horizons were a little less tolerant, they wouldn’t have been penalized.

Read Full Post »

Thoughts on an Essay Discussing Euthanasia

I borrowed a book of essays on medical ethics from the Dutch library for the blind. I’m currently reading one of the author’s essays on euthanasia. The author is a Christian, yet he supports euthanasia as defined as ending somone’s life on that person’s request. That is not to say the author has no objections to euthanasia: a doctor should always do good, and that also includes encouraging the patient to try alternatives. However, basically the author sees no problem with the principle of euthanasia in itself. And neither do I.

I oppose euthanasia on the basis of its practical implications: the issue of whether a person with severe disabilities can decide independently that he or she wants to be euthanized, for example. After all, many cases of “mercy killing” make damn clear that it’s not always the disabled or ill person who decides what happens to his or her life, but rather the family, either directly or indirectly. Look at Jimmy Chambers’ case, for example, where his wife wanted him killed rather than he himself wanting to be euthanized. Terri Schiavo and many severely disabled children, like Tracy Latimer or Haleigh Poutre, are in an even more complicated situation, cause they either cannot indicate their wishes (anymore) or their wishes will be questioned anyway.

Another issue is the doctor’s obligation, in my view, to offer treatment where possible, and to refuse to assist in suicide or euthanaisia if treatment is declined. A while back, people here in the Netherlands argued that euthanasia should be legal on those who “suffer life”. Once again, I would agree that there is no problem with the principle of euthanasia or assisted suicide on the person’s request, and neither does the extent of a person’s illness or disability change the rightness or wrongness of euthanasia – if only disabled people could be euthanized or assisted in their suicide, as is the case in most places with euthanasia laws, it would be discriminating -, but what is the problem, is that these people should be in the mental health system, and many are not. Try advocating better psychiatric care instead of euthanasia.

The author of the essay claims that euthanasia is an appropriate possibility for Christians, and he uses correct arguments for that, which, to a non-believer like myself are very clear but which may pose trouble for believers. What many Christians say, and what I don’t agree with, is that God is the giver and taker of life, and that He alone can decide when and how a person will die. This, however, is an illogical belief given modern medicine. I once wrote about God co-existing with science and named the exampel of some Christians not wanting their children immunized cause they think that if a child gets an illness, it’s God’s will. At that point, I wondered whether God hadn’t given us the medical knowledge to develop vaccines. And the same goes for every other medical treatment available: if you decide that God is the sole governor of life and death, no medical intervention is allowed. And even if you believe that, and on that basis decide, being a doctor, not to treat a particular patient, that even is a decision. The author of the essay correctly states that the issue of euthanasia in Christianity is not about whether we’re deciding or God is, but whether a person can decide for himself or someone else, like a doctor, is going to decide for him.

I’m not religious, as I said, and I can understand it if many Christian right-to-life advocates (well, it’s not really a right, if God is supposed to be the only decision-maker) are offended by th is idea, but for me it makes clear that it’s not about the principle: it is perfectly alright, in my view, for a patient to ask to be euthanized, as much as it is alright for him to commit suicide. It is not desirable, of course, but it’s not principly wrong. And neither is it wrong for a medical professional to support euthanasia in this context, but it’s the practical applications that make it inappropriate.

Read Full Post »

Rants on Christian Denominations, the Essentials of Religion, and Moral Standards

I once again did some reading on Christianity and religion in general. I read over the United Methodist Church webpage and was astonished at the many rituals and doctrines it imposes, even being a relatively liberal church. I just can’t understand that God would impose so many laws upon us. There are, of course, certain rituals that are symbolic of a believer’s convenant with God, like baptism or the Holy Communion. Still, these rituals also serve another purpose: to form a community within the church. I, believing there’s a God/Divine, can’t say I’m a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim, cause I don’t follow the doctrines of any of these religions. I would have to profess faith in Jesus Christ in order to even claim to be a christian, for instance, and to be any more than just calling myself a christian, I would have to conform to certain rituals, like baptism. That’s understandable, as organized religion, no
matter how divinely-inspired it may be, still has a cultural component, and in this case baptism is the ritual by which we make clear that we accept God’s grace.

What I, however, don’t understand are all the judgmental beliefs about good or bad behaviour that different churches hold. The Assemblies of God, for instance, have an extensive list of position papers on everything they consider immoral, and even the UMC has some greatly unnecessary social beliefs. I just don’t understand why churches, in 2005, would still stick to cultural norms held 2000 years ago just because they’re in the Bible. Isn’t believing about a journey on our way to finding God? And of course your religion’s holy book should be a guide on that journey, but I still, to this day, don’t understand why we have to interpret it literally. Because if we don’t, the entire religion has no merit, cause the religion is in that book? Just because parts of the book, eg. the Bible, are not accurate at this time anymore or are just totally incorrect (like the creation story), that doesn’t mean that it’s all incorrect, does it? Of course we can never be sure that one religion is correct and the others are flawed – that’s what faith is about -, but you can have that faith.

I was happy to find out that the United Church of Christ is not built upon many creeds and doctrines. They at least recognize that Christianity is about a faith in Jesus Christ and about a journey towards God, not about cultural norms of 2000 years ago. I did not find these liberal communities of faith among other religions, but to be honest, I didn’t look for them. Now I know that the UCC has a very bad reputation among christians in other churches, especially for its not condemning homosexuals. I found someone at ProLifeBlogs condemning the StillSpeaking campaign for this very reason, as if condemning homosexuality is inherent in being pro-life. Well, it’s not, of course, and I assume that the UCC has no problem with abortion, cause they’re liberals, and most liberals have no problem with abortion, but that’s not universally so. I’m even more non-traditional than those, in that I’m not a christian, and yet I’m pro-life. Well, that’s another topic entirely, but it equally much signifies the stupid connotation of totally unrelated beliefs.

Read Full Post »

Musings on Identity and Purpose

If we create and maintain our identities and self-images because of a need to provide our lives with a sense of unity and purpose… why do we have such a need in the first place?

This is a difficult subject for me. Why would one need an identity, a self-image, in the first place? Why is one looking for unity or purpose? These two are not the same, I think, but they’re related: if one has a particular purpose in life, or a goal to work to (whether that be something materialistic or practical or something spiritual, along the lines of “pleasing God”), one knows what to direct one’s actions to and hence will have a more united sense of self. However, unity in oneself is also significant at much more basic levels: a “purpose in life” sounds so vague while goals or attitudes are more tangible. They also need to represent some unity. I have enough experience with complete confusion on these issues to know that, and yet I would not know why one in fact needs this unity.

I’m not sure that everyone needs one particular purpose in life. I mean, you could define the purpose of life along the lines of “self-actualization”, “pleasing God” or some other vague term, but I don’t see why it would help anyone to know that they live to actualize themselves, or to please God, or whatever. Well, where religion comes in, it does play a significant role of course, as in religion it’s believed that the “good life” gets rewarded and the “bad life” gets punished. But if you don’t believe in an afterlife, like me, I don’t see why it’d help you to know that you live for some philosophically or spiritually vague reason like self-actualization or “happiness”. Maybe I’m too young to wonder about these issues on a more personal level than in philosophy class, but that would only prove that one doesn’t need a particular purpose in this sense.

With regard to more basic kinds of purposes, like goals, it is easier to see why we need them. If you have absolutely no goals in your life, I’m sure you’re getting pretty depressed. Of course, the goal could be something along th elines of “having fun”, but it has to be something. Like, if I did not plan on going to college next year, why would I go to rehab now? Why would I do anything at all except for just sit in my room and surf the Internet? Why would I sit in my room and surf the Internet anyway? Because it’s fun. Then I’m still having the reason of “fun” to do the things I do.

Identity is related to goals and purposes. It is our qualities that shape our goals. It is also others’ perceptios or expectations about us that shape these goals, but they have a strange interconnectedness with our qualities in that humans have the ability to interpret actions and reactions of others. This is what I’ve had great difficulty with over the past couple of years: the interconnectedness between others’ perceptions and expectations of me (or the way I perceived them), my qualities (or what I thought were my qualities) and the goals I’d set for myself, or that I’d thought others had set for me. There has not been any sort of unity in these, and the unity still isn’t complete, and I know that I want this unity. When hanging around in multiple communities, I never make a secret of the fact that I want to “integrate” – I don’t consider that to be the correct wording, since I’m not truly multiple, only have a very inconsistent sense of self (and even wonder if mine is more inconsistent than that of the average adolescent or if it’s jsut that I can’t cope with the inconsistency). I at times obscure that statement by saying that I want the “insiders” to better cooperate and I suspect they’ll merge once they learn to cooperate. That was what happened in 2002, I thought, but it wasn’t really: I decided I knew what was “right” to work on, ie. I defined my goals, and this sense of setting consistent goals influenced my sense of my qualities that related to them. It is happening to an extent now, too.

That still doesn’t explain why we actually need this unity. I know we do – I get completely confused and screwed-up when I feel very “divided” -, but I don’t really understand why it is actually necessary to have a unity in oneself. Healthy multiples, I guess, would also prove this theory wrong, cause they often have very inconsistent identities. Yet they do have a unity in their purpose or goals, otherwise they wouldn’t take collective responsibility and wouldn’t be healthy multiples. I think, indeed, that it’s more about having some goals than about being able to describe oneself with perfect consistency.

Read Full Post »

Student Getting an “F” for Mentioning God

This is truly ridiculous! Student gets F grade for mentioning God, it is said. The atheist professor had prohibited her from using the word in an essay on the role of religion in government. How would this be possible? When you permit a student to write a paper on religion, you should expect to find the word “God” mentioned in it, especially in a country where Christianity is so influential as in the United States. The country is “one nation under God”, they say, so if you want to do an essay on the topic of religion and the government, you’ll have to mention God, period. Besides, would other words, like Supreme Being, Divine, etc. do better? That’s making no sense.

I think this professor is doing a very poor job at separating his role as an atheist from his role as a professor, and furthermore, he’s reinforcing the stereotype of atheists as Christian-haters. I’m not an atheist, but I know many people who are. Some of them are quite suspicious of religion, and Christianity in particular – probably cause that’s the leading religion in their societies -, but they would not be so stupid as to prohibit people from even using the word “God”. It is not grounded on any sort of logic, and yet it makes it seem as if all atheists hate religion and religious people. It’s even having negative effects upon atheists, in the United States, that are already being discriminated against. Now Christians seem to have an argument to do so – that atheists ate discriminating, too. I see this as an unwise decision of this professor’s at best.

Read Full Post »

The Bible, Sin, and Homosexuality

The same conservative Christian I wrote about before is now claiming that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible. Before I studied the Bible too extensively, I thought so as well, simply cause Leviticus says that homosexuality is wrong. However, if we had to follow everything that’s in Leviticus, every single person would be sinful as hell. One couldn’t wear clothes made of more than one substance, not have more than one crop on one’s land, not eat oysters and some other food, etc. The conservative Christian said that these are laws that applied to the ancient Jews and not now, and came up with other portions, like 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. Well, there is speculation of the correct translation of these words, according to this article. The same goes for all other passages where the word “homosexual” is used. In some, masturbation used to be what Christians referred to, but relaxation with regard to the attitudes about masturbation may have altered the translation.

According to this essay, Biblical arguments should be used to accept homosexuality within the Church. I would agree – if liberal Christians are going to use non-Biblical arguments, their position will most certainly be rejected by the conservatives. I could tell the conservative Christian I’m debating with that homosexuality has been found to have a neurological basis, in a recent Karolinska Institute (Sweden) study, but that probably wouldn’t make it any more right according to him – perhaps behaviour therapy could alter this, as O. Ivar Lovaas and others wanted in the 1970s. Now I never liked Applied Behaviour Analysis, but it is even more wrong when the “problem” appears to be neurologically-based. Maybe, someday, homosexuality, now, can be “cured”? Not that I would favour it, but that’s making clear that it is as sinful as any other neurological deviation.

Read Full Post »

Does Morality Come from God?

I am seeing some extremist Christians claim that all morals come from God, and specifically their God, or Jesus. They say that morals have to come from somewhere, since otherwise there would be no Absolute Truth and if there weren’t, nothing would be good or evil. Agreed, there have to be some universal values that all people in their right minds would subscribe to. Relativism is a difficult issue for philosophers today to deal with. I try to call on people’s conscience and their moral values to see that things like killing are wrong. Don’t we all hold a framework of values, though heavily influenced by our education and experience?

If morality came from God, then each and every Christian (or Muslim or whatever) would be perfectly moral and each and every non-believer would be a total sinner. Not just because non-belief is a sin, but because he or she couldn’t possibly know any morals. Then, I’d conclude that all non-believers are killers, thieves, sexual offenders, and everything else considered immoral. As a non-believer – well, I’m an Idealist philosophically and virtually all Idealists believe in some Absolute Spirit, but not as in one particular religion -, I tend to disagree.

If ethics originated from God, and only those that claim allegiance to this God are truly moral, further, how can one know that this is true? There are so many religions in the world, so how do we know which one has the right morals? A conservative Christian I’ve been debating with, comes up with the reasoning that Jesus is worshipped by 1.9 billion people, that the Bible is the bestseller of the world, and that our calendar is based on Christianity. However, this is only because Christians were successful at missionary work, bringing their religion over the entire world. Furthermore, it is only *now*, in the last few centuries of the second millennium and the early years of the third millennium accoridng to the Common Era, that Christianity is the most common religion and the religion held by the most developed countries in the world (which is not to say that all underdeveloped countries are non-Christian). In the eight centuries before the Common Era and the first four centuries in the Common Era, the Roman Empire was considered the centre of the world, and, ironically, it collapsed shortly after it had universally adopted Christianity. I’m not saying that Christianity is wrong, I’m just saying that it’s chance that this religion is the most common one in the world at this moment.

Religion has always been an important part of culture, and hence, has influenced morality everywhere and throughout the ages. That is not the same as to say that morality comes from God, let alone this particular God.

Jerry Billings, in his article Ethics Without God, Or God Without Ethics, points out perfectly well how it is impossible to say that ethics come from God, cause firstly, many atheists and agnostics are also moral, and don’t need a God for that, and secondly, if morals came from God, one couldn’t judge without God that this God is the right God, so a non-religious person could never judge whether the Christian God, or any other deity, were a good God. That points out why it’s just chance that Christianity is viewed to be the good religion in large parts of the world, while it may just as well be any other religion or no religion at all.

Read Full Post »

Just Some Ramblings

I went to Sevinc yesterday. I had known her from the school for the blind, when I was in fourth grade and she was in sixth. When I was at the rehab centre this summer, she would actually have come, but had no time. Then, I mentioned I knew her, so Ingrid and I went to call her. So, we had said to see each other on Thursday. It was pretty cool and fun. and she has a labrador/golden retriever guide dog named Krispin (hope I spell that correctly). Anyways, pretty cool.

Today (Friday I mean) I finally went to the fitness centre again. After four weeks!!! So my condition wasn’t too great. Unfortunately, we had to have our trainign schedule revised (needs to be done periodically). If I’d had some more fitness sessions lately, I might have been able to get my schedule to do some more or more difficult exercises, but now the only change I made was having one exercise which I find too difficult replaced by another.

I spent the rest of the day reading stuff about Christianity and the Bible. I found an World English Bible online. I also found the book Science and Christianity by John D. Callahan. He is a christian, believes modern science to be correct and feels that, though the Bible is the greatest book ever written, it is not inerrant. He’s the director of Faith and Reason Ministries. This book is pretty interesting, although it uses sometimes weird examples to prove that the Bible contains errors, for example Paul saying that he’s a sinner, and hence admitting that even he (who has written a great part of the New Testament) isn’t perfect (1 Tim. 1:15). Hmmm, a pretty out-of-context example! But overall I like the book. Have also been hanging around on a forum for the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. Pretty interesting discussions. I know too little of the Bible to be able to quote it, and I want to be careful with sharing my ideas on God, inerrancy etc., cause I don’t want to offend people, but it’s interesting to read what others have to say.

Speaking of that, I’ve been wondering lately what my (conservative) christian friends would think of me writing so philosophically about religion (and mainly christianity). I don’t hope they take offence in my ideas. I mean, just because there are christian ministries that state the same, doesn’t mean that I’m allowed to criticise the Bible the way I do. Hmmm, well, let me hope the christian folks that read my stuff will know that I don’t mean to insult them or anything.

Astrid

Ps – spent yesterday night reading some interesting articles in Future Reflections, but will write about that later. Going to sleep now.

Read Full Post »