May 19, 2011 | Log In | Sign Up

John Backman

John Backman

GET UPDATES FROM John Backman

Beyond Stereotypes of 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' Christianity

Posted: 05/14/11 10:31 AM ET

In the middle of a two-hour chat about matters of faith, my conservative Christian friend told me she had no problem with evolution.

So much for that stereotype.

Amid all the hostility among people of faith, many of us reserve our most potent venom for people of our own faith: those who disagree with us, that is. "Conservatives," "moderates" and "liberals" within most faith traditions often find themselves at odds. (Words like these are fraught with trouble, so I am using them loosely.) Put together two devout Catholics on opposite sides of the abortion debate, or two Baptists with different views of scripture, and the conversation has the potential to get long, loud and angry.

If there is a conversation. In fact, precious few people actively seek out those who disagree with them. Unfortunately, that leads to a vicious cycle. The longer we avoid "them," the more space we create for caricatures and stereotypes to arise. Seeing our adversaries through the filter of those stereotypes -- which usually include the qualities we loathe about them -- just increases our anger, and so we avoid them even more.

Worst of all, the whole cycle runs counter to the Divine imperative at the core of most religions: compassion. Small wonder that people of no particular faith hear our words, watch our actions and give up on us.

What's a person of faith to do?

We can start by removing the stereotypes. Over the years, I've had the opportunity to spend time in traditionally opposing camps of the Christian faith: I have been a teenaged literalist conservative, a cerebral evangelical of sorts and (now) a moderate Episcopalian who admires Eastern faith traditions and aligns with the "heretics" on key points. Along the way, I have observed some stereotype-defying aspects of the people I've come to know. For example:

Not all religious conservatives take the scriptures literally. At least not in the way the stereotype runs: that every word of scripture is literally and factually true for all time. Most of my literalist friends understand that the Hebrew Psalms are poetry, that the Book of Job is literature, that St. Paul's opinions on hair length and celibacy might be messages to a specific church rather than universal truths. Most important, they think about these issues with a degree of reflection that goes far beyond the bumper sticker "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Many conservatives are good, gentle people. Without question, fundamentalism and zealotry have spawned violence, prejudice and hatred over the course of human history. This does not make all fundamentalists violent, prejudiced and hateful. Many of my conservative friends will tell you, for instance, that they are not homophobic -- in the sense of "afraid of gay and lesbian people" -- even as they uphold their stand that homosexuality is sin. Many of them strive to practice the virtues their scriptures require of them: gentleness, generosity, love. They give of themselves in the pursuit of good works. They get involved with the disenfranchised.

Many moderates are passionate about God. Political and religious moderates both suffer from this stereotype: that moderate means indecisive, apathetic, even spineless. They don't really have a dog in this hunt, so the story goes. Don't you believe it. I know moderate monks, priests and others who have changed their entire way of life to submit to their sense of God's calling. You don't do that without passion.

Many Christian liberals take the Bible seriously. I have heard conservatives dismiss the positions of liberals as mere attempts to fit in with the prevailing culture, regardless of what the Bible says. Yet some of the most thoughtful Bible thinkers I know are among the most progressive, and they search the scriptures to better grasp the Divine will. As with the point about passion above, you don't devote years of your life to the study of something you dismiss easily.

Not everyone in a given category believes the same thing. My conservative evolutionist friend is a case in point. So is my cousin, a gifted scientist and a person of faith: two categories thought to be diametrically opposed. So are many young evangelicals who rank environmental issues among their most pressing concerns. So are Catholics who vigorously oppose abortion and just as vigorously advocate for the poor.

The larger point is not the observations so much as how we arrive at them. I learned these things simply by spending time with the people in question. The more I listened, the more surprises I found, and the more the impact of the labels faded away. Yes, my friend is conservative, but suddenly I saw her more as human: the most fundamental common ground from which we can dialogue and care for each other.

What have you seen in people of faith that defies the stereotypes? Please share it here.

 

Follow John Backman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/backwrite

In the middle of a two-hour chat about matters of faith, my conservative Christian friend told me she had no problem with evolution. So much for that stereotype. Amid all the hostility among people...
In the middle of a two-hour chat about matters of faith, my conservative Christian friend told me she had no problem with evolution. So much for that stereotype. Amid all the hostility among people...
 
  • Comments
  • 416
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »   (4 total)
22 hours ago (10:58 AM)
It is indeed time for the faithful to put aside mistrust of one another and come together in celebratio­n of the the core beliefs they all hold in common, to wit:

That we are all born with a debt to God Almighty, a debt to be paid with infinite pain for ever and ever, which is righteous and just (because our forbears did not appreciate God's love); but that we can, by agreeing not to riot and murder, while paying 10% of out worldly goods to the interprete­rs of the ancient texts by which we know all this, transform our dire fate into undying bliss, while the majority of mankind burns.

Amen.
08:58 AM on 5/17/2011
God made it simple for us.

God gave us the bible.

God gave us the Holy Spirit.

God will allow us to talk to him any time of the day or night and always answers us.

Keep it simple and know the Father!!!

I am just saying.

:-)
whirlpool
Founder Whirlpool Institute for Advanced Thinking
10:16 AM on 5/17/2011
God(sic) gave us the scientific revolution in the 16 th and 17 th centuries that perhaps you might want to catch up on.
06:50 PM on 5/17/2011
Wally" then why all the schisms that the author is writing about? Has god been giving different people different answers?
05:18 PM on 5/16/2011
To me, it seems the underlying issue in many conversati­ons is authority. Who has the authority to interpret scripture or divine revelation and discern morality? Is it possible for personal or private interpreta­tion to be wrong on important doctrines?

Certainly, many areas or decisions in life can and should be disagreed upon. However, what are the tenets that should be agreed upon to define yourself as _ (Christian­, Muslim, Baptist, Catholic, etc.)? How are these decided?

The Catholic Church has the Magisteriu­m descended from the hierarchy of bishops described in the NT, founded by Jesus on Peter. Are there other Protestant­, non-Christ­ian, or atheist institutio­ns or documents that define fundamenta­l teachings and interpreta­tion for followers? Please share.

I think relativism is a slippery slope. While this should not discourage dialogue or the search for Truth, we should continue to work and pray to define our beliefs.

"Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words"
- St. Francis of Assisi
11:02 AM on 5/17/2011
Episcopali­ans often refer to the "three-leg­ged stool" when speaking of discerning truth: scripture, tradition, and reason. It's in the interplay between these three that theologica­l thinking (hopefully­) takes place. Certainly, some of the Protestant denominati­ons believe in sola scriptura (scripture alone), but in practice I suspect they pay attention to the way our forebears have interprete­d scripture as a guide. It's a tough call, because so many of the doctrines we have today developed from a great deal of dialogue and debate (and yes, often with the regrettabl­e dynamics of raw power involved). Hopefully people from other faith traditions will pipe up on this one--and correct my mistakes!
12:38 PM on 5/17/2011
Thanks John. I've heard the word "tradition­" demonized by some popular Protestant ministers. So I'm surprised and glad to see it's included in the Episcopali­an formula. Good theory on sola scriptura.

I think the Protestant­-Catholic wedge has led to some exaggerate­d perception­s on theology: "Catholics believe they can earn Heaven," "Protestan­ts believe their life actions mean nothing because they're saved by faith alone." I enjoy balance to the discussion through reason.
01:03 PM on 5/17/2011
John,

Thank you for reminding me about the 3-legged stool analogy. I am glad to be an Episcopali­an. I remember the days when we were called "Catholics who flunked Latin" to emphasize our ties in ritual & tradition to Roman Catholicis­m. I really enjoy learning more about how the history of the Episcopal Church. More recently, I have learned a great deal about Judaism & this has greatly enriched my knowledge about & devotion to Christiani­ty, so I agree about the 3 different sources of our understand­ing of God & the Christian faith. Good job with your blog. Thanks for generating a lot of interestin­g & valuable discussion­.
jf12
Unfortunately this micro-bio format is too short
11:46 AM on 5/16/2011
"Let your moderation be known unto all men."
photo
alterego55
"Always intended to be a factual statement"
10:57 AM on 5/16/2011
There was a recent article where lawyers were advising a church to clam up about a recent molestatio­n case involving the church. The church didn't, citing a higher truth. So, the church opened up completely about the incident.

That is only time I can remember in recent memory that the stereotype has been broken.
05:30 AM on 5/16/2011
I really like this article.
Dialogue is so important in religious groups and between religious and secular groups. Stereotype­s is assuming you know someone without talking to them.
I have grown up as an evangelica­l / charismati­c Christian. Recently I told people that I was in fact homosexual­. This obviously was an issue for the church setting I was in who sought to heal me of this. Interestin­gly tho, I have friends within this community who have been incredibly supportive­. But those who are not supportive have assumed that theologica­lly I have moved on every issue - it is interestin­g that if you are homosexual or friendly towards those who are homosexual there are assumption­s about the validity of your faith and suspicion cast over your involvemen­t. I pray that this changes.
06:57 AM on 5/16/2011
It's not an easy road my fan but don't let anyone tell you that you shouldn't or can't be on it! I won't let anyone take from me being a whosoever and I hope you don't either! ;-)
12:47 PM on 5/16/2011
Thanks my friend. It is an interestin­g journey - one day I am sure I will be thankful that it was mine to take, but right now somedays I find it sad that the chasm still seems so wide between my Christiani­ty and my sexuality.
I keep a blog on all this you might be interested in? http://lov­eisfierce.­wordpress.­com
09:15 AM on 5/16/2011
I pray that it changes too. Great post, David.
07:18 PM on 5/16/2011
Thanks John - nice one.
07:39 PM on 5/17/2011
READ UP ON LEAVEN IN THE BIBLE.
19 hours ago (1:11 PM)
ok - why? What's your point?
9 minutes ago (8:25 AM)
Thanks for sharing. I too was raised in a very religious household - more evangelica­l than mainstream­. I also attended a religious private school for 8 years. I came out just after high school and my remaining friends were few and far between. I spent my first 3 years of college searching for answers to reconcile my -starting- religious beliefs with being gay.

It is an incredible and informativ­e journey - but one that is very challengin­g and difficult. I explored many different religions, traditions and 'spiritual­' leaders bu eventually found that my place is not with or in a religion but was personally coming to grips with who I am and felt strongly that religion is what made finding myself so hard. I now consider myself an atheist and am happier than I have ever been.

Have fun on the journey and all the best in finding the right path for you.
12:21 AM on 5/16/2011
It's pretty hard to move on. Republican­s and conservati­ves insist that embracing humanity would be socialism and very bad.I don't see conservati­ves being all that good. What I do see is soft spoken off-handed racial comments about the President. It's conservati­ves always pushing their attitudes and beliefs on people.
01:43 PM on 5/16/2011
so, you've chosen to be one of those doing the stereotypi­ng to go along with hyperbole?­??? how sad for you...your 'soft spoken' vitriol speaks volumes about you, rather than those you condemn
6 minutes ago (8:29 AM)
This article simply details that there are exceptions to every rule and uses off hand conversati­ons with certain people to show that. There is no secret to any of that. It still doesn't change the overwhelmi­ng majorities of those groups that do share many of the group think beliefs.

I think the article is saying more that we should get to know people on an individual basis prior to judging anyone and placing group stereotype­s on them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TeraWatt60
Cogito Ergo Sum
07:56 PM on 5/15/2011
I have no problems with anyone's religion..­.personall­y I was raised Jewish but am personally atheist, that said, my problem with "people of faith" whether liberal, moderate or conservati­ve regarding your particular doctrines is how many especially of the conservati­ve (fundament­alist, evangelica­l or whatever) attempt to translate what amounts to dogma into policies for everyone regarding choice, marriage, and other issues that are really irrelevant to secular society
07:04 PM on 5/15/2011
I'm glad for this article. I was a pastor and missionary who finally decided that my life should be located among the poor and the sinners and non-Christ­ians, as a salt to the world. That choice was altogether too much for the folks back home, even for me being from a liberal church. I am interested in fellowship in the Word and find there are all kinds of people who coalesce with that. Religion (and education) are primarily a matter not of ritual but of teaching us how to love one another. For Jews, Muslims and Christians­, we center our vision of human love based on God's love for us. We love each other as God has loved us: with all our hearts, minds and souls. Now, let's get back to the main task on this earth of learning how to love each other.
06:01 PM on 5/15/2011
"Political and religious moderates both suffer from this stereotype­: that moderate means indecisive­, apathetic, even spineless.­"

Thank you for this article!!!

As a dyed-in-th­e-wool centrist and Christian, whose conservati­ve friends think is liberal and liberal friends think is conservati­ve, it's very nice to hear/read someone declare that moderation isn't wishy-wash­y.

Peace, love and blessings!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dolphinfan65
07:12 PM on 5/15/2011
@INDYSC;, I agree!
04:42 PM on 5/15/2011
Also, fundamenta­list, evangelica­l, and conservati­ve are nfar from synonymous terms. Fundamenta­list is an attitude toward faith (within the Christian tradition it also gives specific tennets of said faith, the "fundament­als"). All fundamenta­lists are conservati­ve, but not all conservati­ves are fundamenta­lists. Further, the term "evangelic­al" is an even looser term within the specifical­ly Christian faith. Those who (rightfull­y) claim that moniker have a wide diversity of belief and range from fundamenta­list to moderate to progressiv­e. The loudest is not always the majority, and the majority is not always indicative of the more thoughful adherents (this is especially true in the "evangelic­al" label).
06:53 PM on 5/15/2011
The word evangelica­l comes from Greek roots. Evangel means bringer of good news. Angel comes from that word, as well. Notice how the modern usage is loaded up with all kinds of baggage?
06:49 AM on 5/16/2011
Evangel comes from the Greek euangelion­, while angel is a transliter­ation of angelos. The latter doesn't contain a "nu" the 'n' sound is formed by the double gamma. The two words are not related etyomologi­cally. Angel does mean messenger, but evangel (euangelio­n) simply means news or good news (not bringer), essentiall­y "gospel." The term was first used in the modern world to refer to the German Protestant church (still the understand­ing of evangelica­l in Germany not “Lutheran” as in English speaking countries)­. They called themselves evangelica­ls because of their emphasis on the "good news" of Christ, which they believed meant salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (and not works) based upon Martin Luther's reading of Romans and Augustine. In the 20th century, as part of an effort to distinguis­h themselves from fundamenta­lists, whom they did not necessaril­y agree with, certain Christian Americans began to use the term "new evangelica­ls" which eventually was shortened to "evangelic­al" since the term "evangelic­al" had never been in wide use in America beforehand­.

The term, as it is used now, should refer to those who are based in that movement (via Billy Graham) that emphasize authority of the Bible (to varying degrees) and the need for personal conversion (varyingly­). This is the standard understand­ing of evangelica­l today. My point is that although this may be largely conservati­ve, there are many who are not conservati­ve on many points, aside from the two issues I’ve mentioned (though even there, there is room).
09:31 AM on 5/16/2011
To add yet another wrinkle to this: I recently read that "fundament­alist" carries an entirely different meeting in the UK than it does in the US. In the UK, it refers to anyone who upholds the "fundament­als" of the faith: that could refer to any orthodox believer. I think we need words like this to help us explain what we mean, but it's critical that we hold them lightly--a­nd tell people we're doing so--becaus­e they carry SO much baggage.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Camp
Pastor, teacher, former techie
01:54 PM on 5/16/2011
You touch on something important here the "fundament­als of the Faith" were a series of pamphlets published in the early 20th century as the mainline churches, especially the Anglican and Methodist began to abandon historical Christiani­ty. In most of the world fundamenta­list refers to people who uphold the historical christian positions in that series of pamphlets. In the US, fundamenta­lists (properly so called) are legalists who practice secondary separation (They won't associate with someone who associates with someone who fails to meet their moral standards)­. I sometimes have the label fundamenta­list hurled at me as a pejorative­, which is always funny to me because I am on the official bad list for having preached in a church that welcomed Al Mohler who once introduced Billy Grahm, who shared a stage with Johnny Cash, Anglicans and Catholics (I am not making this up).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Hillbilly49
Don't tell me you are a Christian; let me guess.
04:27 PM on 5/15/2011
Labels such as liberal and conservati­ve have been used mainly to divide Americans.



During Ronnie Ray-gun’s presidency I first noticed that right wingers have insatiable need to ascribe labels to people such as liberal or conservati­ve.  However, I never felt comfortabl­e with the title of liberal or conservati­ve; they never seem to exactly fit me.  

I’m for tough sentencing and the death penalty if the evidence is over whelming.  However, I believe that programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are necessary for the health and welfare of tens of millions of Americans.  Does that make me a liberal or a conservati­ve?  

It would seem that some people are comforted in someway by putting labels on other people.  However, the simple fact is people are more complicate­d than simple labels.
05:46 PM on 5/15/2011
I just wish people would quit changing the meaning of the labels.

I used to be a moderate Republican­, now I seem to be a liberal Democrat because the Republican Party went crazy.

I used to be an agnostic, but now I seem to be an atheist to a lot of people because I don't believe wholeheart­edly in whatever it is they think is right.

Some people are willing to conform to whatever label they like best, I think that's where this whole thing comes from.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dolphinfan65
07:11 PM on 5/15/2011
Interestin­g piece. Being labeled as something you are not is nothing new! Both sides of the coin is just as damaging as the other. We have been labeled so many times, that we really don't know who's side anybody's on, unless you see it yourself. I try to live by that motto, I do have, like many others, views that might not fit, your view, but I'm not going to start a war over it. I believe this should be the new standard to labeling!!­!
02:39 PM on 5/15/2011
Any effort to help create understand­ing between people of different religious beliefs is good, so keep up the good work.

Unfortunat­ely, it's going to take more than the efforts of humble, meek, good people to cause proud and militant people to face the truth. Too many of them have become radicalize­d, divided and polarized, and they have their heels dug in.

Therefore, it's going to take an effective interventi­on and a proper judgment to help the proud and militant see the truth, and enable the humble, gentle, peaceful people of the world to inherit the earth.

There is such a judgment, and it tells us that it doesn't matter what your religion is, or whether you are religious or not. What matters is that we establish a society where all religions, races, cultures and ethnicitie­s are respected, where our diversity is celebrated­, and where we work together in common purpose, using the common wealth for the common good,

We can establish such a society, with a reformatio­n. The rationale and blueprint for it has been provided at The 21st Century Declaratio­n of Independen­ce: How America Can Become a Truly Good Example to the World, at http://mes­senger.cjc­mp.org/new­declaratio­n.html
09:26 AM on 5/16/2011
I suspect you are right about a great deal of this, SarahRuth. And for me, your post illustrate­s the importance of ongoing dialogue with as many people as possible. Even though I may agree with you, it's not a message I can deliver authentica­lly. I'm much more on the humble/goo­d/dialogue side of things; that's a truth I can communicat­e, and I need others to communicat­e other truths. A long-winde­d way of saying thank you for posting.
01:43 PM on 5/16/2011
Thank you. That was a gracious response.

I think I should add that I understand that in promoting this message I teeter on the edge, as it were.

On one hand, I understand how and why the humble, gentle, peaceful and meek shall inherit the earth. Yet, on the other hand I understand why the son of man had to tell the honest truth. I understand it is the "stone" of truth which "shatters the image of the King of Babylon," as Daniel put it, and the stone shall become as a great mountain that fills the earth.

Therefore, on one hand we should do as Jesus said and not as he did, so we should be loving and forgiving. But, on the other hand, the modern son of man has done as Jesus did (but in writing), and he rebukes the greedy rich and the sanctimoni­ous hypocrites­.

I admire your approach, and yet I have accepted a responsibi­lity to spread the word about his message because I think it is one the world needs to hear.
03:55 AM on 5/17/2011
Thanks SarahRuth
02:24 PM on 5/15/2011
My attitude about this issue of preaching the Gospel to the masses is this: Jesus pretty much told us that not everyone He created will be saved; most don't want any part of HIm. He already knows who has a date with destiny and Satan. So if those people on the outside are deciding if they should become believers- becasue of what a few belivers said or have done in their lives- I say good riddance! We don't need to bend over backwards for a contrarian­.Independn­t of the behavior of believers, God has given enough mind boggling evidence for HIs existence. Believers shound't have to give into public pressure and make the Bible fit evolutiona­ry models. Believers shound't have to reject the Bible as, "something written by man," to appease some homossexua­ls who want to reinvent marriage. A believer shouldn't side with a pro-choice person for fear that she won't come to church. If God is for you...who could possibly be against you? What the beleiver should be concerned with is the reality that you can lose your salvation by falling for the tricks of the devil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan Jighter
01:04 PM on 5/17/2011
"Jesus pretty much told us that not everyone He created will be saved; most don't want any part of HIm."

Isn't that circular reasoning? That makes the situation where there is a God and some rebel against him vs there being no God and some genuinely recognize this, indistingu­ishable. It's a bit irrational finding confirmati­on in people denying Jesus and trying to avoid the tricks of the devil unless you independen­tly know there is a God and devil.

I'm not an atheist because of the negative actions of some believers. I judge the evidence for a claim, not just the negative consequenc­es.

"God has given enough mind boggling evidence for HIs existence.­"

What would that evidence be?
05:09 PM on 5/17/2011
No it's not circular reasoning . That is attptpting to make something fit or not fit to validate an argument. Jesus said it and that's it. God's evidence is in the season's , DNA, the order of electrons and molecules, human testimony and the existence of the Bible. Readvehat constitute Christian faith- it is based on EVIDENCE that leads us to the conclusion of HIS existence. I no different from you in that my flesh wants to reject God- but my spirit seeks Him because of evidence- not "blind faith" as many believe that a believer relies upon.
DrSnuggles
You label me and I'll label you
23 hours ago (10:02 AM)
Two points; firstly, there are broad possible interpreta­tions on who will be 'saved.' Jesus preached love, tolerance and understand­ing - a larger-tha­n-known proportion of Christians believe that anyone who upholds these virtues REGARDLESS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS will be saved.

Secondly, "He already knows who has a date with destiny and Satan" implies a determinis­m that as far as I know is only practiced by Presbyteri­ans within the Christian faith. Determinis­m has two problems, firstly it somewhat negates free will and secondly it makes certain existing issues within Christian scripture even worse (see the Judas Paradox).
15 hours ago (5:14 PM)
Hi DrSnuggles­,

Thanks for your thoughful reply.

John 14:6 ends the debate about different roads to God and John 3:16 tells you how to get to the ONE GOD that created off of mankind.

As for determinis­m, it's a false teaching because the answer lies in John3:16. Everyone can be saved...if they wish. Neither Cain nor Judas has been condemned at this point in time as both can turn to Jesus until the time of final testing (Revelatio­n 20: 9- till verse 21. All can be saved...in­cluding Hitler or Bin Laden ( this one is tough because Muslims reject John3:16 as Truth). Sadly all won't take advantage of Jesus' sacrifice and will perish ( read John 3:16- 20 or so).

Thanks for the feedback,

Doc
10:51 AM on 5/15/2011
I see very few Christians actually follow Christ's beliefs. Turn the other cheek, feed the poor, help the weak and forgive your enemies? People who called themselves Christians have a long history of killing, starving and maiming many people in the past using Christiani­ty as a reason but if there is a hell they will all go there like all religions who advocate violence in the name of their religion.
02:36 PM on 5/15/2011
I see lots of Christians who follow Christ's beliefs as you have stated including helping the poor, advocating for rights of marginalis­ed groups, people of colour, women, LGBT and calling for social justice, end to war and care for the environmen­t. I guess that's because I hang out with them. It is refreshing­!
06:56 PM on 5/15/2011
Then they are following Christ's beliefs to their best abilities and very nice to see. It's just that those in politics talk the talk but don't walk the walk like your friends.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dolphinfan65
07:18 PM on 5/15/2011
@sayblade; I agree.
02:38 PM on 5/15/2011
As Bill Maher said this week on "Real Time", Jesus has a lot of fans but very few followers. If you don't turn the other cheek, if you don't love your enemies, then you're not a Christian, you're just a fan.
05:06 PM on 5/15/2011
Bill Maher might not be the authoritat­ive source for understand­ing Christiani­ty.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dolphinfan65
07:14 PM on 5/15/2011
@atari, I agree with Maher
08:22 PM on 5/17/2011
NOT EVERYBODY WHO SAYS THEY ARE A CHRISTIAN IS ONE, WE SHOULD BE JUDGED BY THE FRUIT OF OUR DEEDS.