Sun 31st Aug 2014 | Last updated: Sun 31st Aug 2014 at 15:59pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Christopher Hitchens has mellowed, but his idea of Christianity is still grossly distorted

He suspects the scientist who pioneered his cancer treatment is praying for him, and doesn’t mind

By on Monday, 28 March 2011

Dr Francis Collins, who pioneered Hitchens's cancer treatment, is mentioned in the Pope's new book (AP Photo/J Scott Applewhite)

Dr Francis Collins, who pioneered Hitchens's cancer treatment, is mentioned in the Pope's new book (AP Photo/J Scott Applewhite)

If this sounds like a question from the radio programme Round Britain Quiz, I’m sorry. It has just struck me so I will formulate it anyway: what do Pope Benedict, the scientist Francis Collins and Christopher Hitchens have in common? Answer: His Holiness mentions Collins on page 193 of his book Jesus of Nazareth (that’s as far as I’ve got; it’s very dense so I’m having to read it slowly); Collins is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute; and it is his research which has pioneered the experimental treatment that Hitchens is receiving for his throat cancer. Interestingly, Hitchens, as well as naturally hoping that this treatment will efficiently target the site of his tumour, has become good friends with Collins and has publicly debated religion with him.

The Holy Father, as is generally known, is a Catholic; Francis Collins is an evangelical Christian, and author of The Language of God: A Scientist presents Evidence for Belief; and Hitchens, in case you didn’t know it, is a devout atheist. “Devout” is probably the wrong word but “keen” or “committed” don’t quite convey his evangelical brand of atheism. Some Christians hope that if the experiment, involving Hitchens’s DNA, is effective and he is cured, he will undergo a change of heart. But conversion doesn’t work so straightforwardly; you have to be open to grace at some level and, judging from his public pronouncements, Hitchens has slammed this particular door shut. Yet who am I to judge him? As Carson McCullers once wrote, the heart is a lonely hunter.

What is obvious, though, is that in Hitchens’s case, it is not a question of Christianity having been tried and found wanting: it has simply never been tried – or understood. In an interview with Mick Brown in yesterday’s Sunday Telegraph magazine he says he has never yearned for faith, adding: “There isn’t the evidence and I don’t see why anyone would want it to be true. A permanent, invigilated, regulated dictatorship which you are told is for your own good – I can’t think of anything worse.” If that is not the most grotesque distortion of Christianity in short compass, I don’t know what is.

And why does Pope Benedict mention Francis Collins? Because “in the magnificent mathematics of creation, which today we can read in the human genetic code, we recognise the language of God”. It was this “language” that converted Collins himself (although it has not yet converted the scientist Richard Dawkins). The Pope tells us why: “But unfortunately not the whole language. The functional truth about man has been discovered. But the truth about man himself – who he is, where he comes from, what he should do, what is right, what is wrong – this… cannot be read in the same way. Hand in hand with growing knowledge of functional truth there seems to be an increasing blindness towards ‘truth’ itself – towards the question of our real identity and purpose.”

It hardly needs to be pointed out how this applies to Hitchens’s mindset. Still, he has mellowed. He suspects that Collins is praying for him and doesn’t mind, although he thinks it a waste of time. I have blogged before about Hitchens and prayer. He still needs it.

  • Duke of Acquasparta

    Diane, Ian’s exasperation in responding to an extremist like Semper Fidelis has only led him down the same path as his opponent—name calling. I’ve been guilty of the same in responding to SF. However, in truly studying both sides of this grave matter as I have (wrestling with guilt, fear and anger in over 10 years), reason and independent thought have led me to the conclusion that worshiping and praying to a deity in the sky is pointless and a waste of time. If it gives you comfort, fine. And SF’s supposed claim that atheists are guilty of thought crime is absurd when you consider a charge of TC can only be leveled against those who can be held responsible of TC where their veneration of a holy being can hold them liable for having impure or improper thoughts. Peace to you and yours.

  • Ian

    More a description of his state of mind rather than name-calling. Even with repeated explanations, his failure to grasp what he is talking about & arguing against atheism when he does not even understand the simple position of a non-believer. Couple that with his refusal to accept factual evidence – my assertion of stupidity stands.

  • Duke of Acquasparta

    Understood, Ian. Your description of SF reminds me of Sean Hannity debating Christopher Hitchens on the existence of Hannity’s god. Hannity claims to have read all the arguments against his position. Yeah, right. Watch him struggle in vain as he tries to assert the prime mover argument with CH. He fails utterly. If the link doesn’t post correctly, look for the YouTube video title, Sean Hannity vs Christopher Hitchens Debate Does God Exist. It’s a must see.

  • Anonymous

    If you want to see such things handed out in Africa then it will become the same moral wasteland as Europe. The attitude of “condoms save lives” was paraded around Britain when teenage pregnancy and STI rates were rising and since they were publicised they have done precisely nothing to make the problem go away. If you want to see the problem go away entirely then what needs to happen is men need to observe the Church’s other teaching on the matter and not have such affairs outside of wedlock and not force their wives to have them against their will.

    As for your statement about Francis Collins it is not a “God of the Gaps” moment for the simple reason that it is no longer a gap. It is simply a moment when it is virtually impossible for this to have happened by chance and the sophistication of the discovery (which is something no atheist can account for) gives insight into the character of God; it’s hardly a new idea either. The theistic idea of evolution might not make any sense to you but one response that cannot come close is that the sophistication of evolution came about entirely without rationality and yet gave rise to such minds as were rational enough to interpret it (which is the only atheist explanation that makes any logical sense.) Far from making people laugh or respond with anger most scientists (including several agnostic scientists) will agree that between a God who started evolution and a mindless process of evolution that we still have not explained fully there is no contest. The design hypothesis (which includes what Darwin observed) makes infinitely more sense than to say that it all happened ultimately by chance.

  • Anonymous

    You say abstinence will not work but you offer an alternative which has already been tested and found wanting in this country. Abstinence happens to be the only entirely safe way of avoiding STIs (even condoms are less effective when used correctly) the problem is that African men regard it to be their right to sleep with any woman that catches their eye and that is what has to change in Europe and in Africa if the situation is to be solved entirely.

    You are certainly right about this being a great oppurtunity to save lives but handing out condoms and then resting on our laurels will not achieve this; it still leaves harlots on the streets and wives in abusive relationships. Solve these two problems and the greater part of the AIDS crisis will solve itself (as long as men learn to behave themselves there.)

  • Rupert Pelham

    “Such claims that condoms should not play an important role in halting the spread of HIV are unfounded, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and leading AIDS researchers. While condoms are not foolproof, they are highly effective in preventing HIV infection. According to the CDC, studies examining sexually active people at high risk for contracting HIV have found that “even with repeated sexual contact, 98-100% of those people who used latex condoms correctly and consistently did not become infected.” On August 16, 2001, the United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS and the World Health Organization issued a statement that said that condoms were “the best defense” in preventing sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.”

    I’ll leave the answer as to whether condoms are effective against the spread of AIDS to those organizations and scientists which are the most qualified to answer such a question. Please state studies, or quotes from scientists (not the Pope) that condoms are not effective in helping to stop the spread of AIDS. For instance, what specifically happened in England as to the “failure” of condoms? I’d submit that if there was such a failure, it was improper education of the use of condoms, poor quality condoms (which unfortunately occurs in third world countries like Africa) or something other than the proper use of them.

    Obviously, abstinence is 100% effective is spreading STDs like AIDS. However, is it realistic to require this of people? More areas of the human brain are mapped to sexual reproduction than the desire for food. In the US, President Bush’s social policy of abstinence is highly scientifically questionable as to the effectiveness of the spread of STDs. A link follows to an article in The Guardian. This is only one source of many I found that highly calls into question the education of abstinence as effective.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/16/schoolsworldwide.usa

    In response, I’d be interested in reading anything (science-based) which differs from the assertions made in this article.

    Perhaps you see a secular response secondary to religious education and moral preachments with respect to abstinence. IMHO, I highly doubt this would be any more effective.

    I readily agree that simply handing out condoms and then “resting on our laurels” is not the end of preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa. And I would highly commend any effort to decrease prostitution and abusive relationships in any country.

    If you are convinced that abstinence can be achieved to some degree in Africa, then this will take a great deal of time. Why not, in the mean time, encourage the proper use of condoms before this takes place? This will only save lives and give your Church the opportunity to attempt conversion efforts on those who are saved from the terrible sentence of death from AIDS.

    In combing the internet for the research on this post, I was encouraged to find an organization called Catholics for Choice. While you may find this organization morally deficient in following the official policy of the Church, my hat is off to them in their realistic, forward-thinking approach to this grave matter.

    I went on at such length because the blindness demonstrated by the Church in their official policy on condoms I find highly immoral and it leaves me infuriated. All my best.

  • Rupert Pelham

    Whenever a scientific discovery is made it does have the effect of closing “god of the gaps” arguments asserted by those who find “proof” of their god in unscientific examinations of the world. As these “god of the gaps” are continually being closed by science, invoking a deity in these closed gaps becomes increasingly difficult or impossible by any use of reason.

    Before the theory of evolution, it was quite easy for the religious to look at the beauty, order and sophistication of the animal and plant world and wonder—how could this be by chance? Certainly, there has to be a designer involved.

    The initial publication of The Origin of Species caused a massive uproar (anger and laughter included) among the supporters and those opposed—the clergy. Many religious people felt threatened that their designer could now be written out of the picture. Sadly, this anger and laughter continues to this day.

    I’m glad you embrace evolution as a believer. However, your statements about the discovery of evolution I find highly discolored in your belief in your god. Questioning that this purely happened by “chance” is another “god of the gaps” argument, much like the same as is stated by those believers who bring forth the tired and worn out assertion of the prime mover in the creation of the universe. If it is necessary to have a prime mover for the creation of the universe why does it have to be the Christian God? I can state with the same conviction that the prime mover could be a force that is entirely non-metaphysical. Your awe in contemplating evolution is found in your god. My awe is found in the empirical method of science.

    “The theist idea of evolution”? Please, Darwin eventually came to believe that due to his discovery no god was responsible.

    “I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.” – Charles Darwin

    Darwin personally struggled greatly with his discovery of evolution. In 1844, he wrote to his friend, Joseph Hooker, “I am almost convinced… that species are not (it is like confessing a murder) immutable.” Concerning this, Ian Taylor writes, “Many commentators have pointed out that the ‘murder’ he spoke of was in effect the murder of God.” These two quotes were found on a Christian website.

    I’ve yet to view the movie, Creation, but read a good review in of all places, The Catholic Leader. According to the review, the movie is less about the conflict of science and religion, but about the personal struggles of Darwin.

    “The sophistication of evolution came entirely without rationality”? I am at a loss to even respond to such a muddled statement. Almost your entire response is based in “god of the gaps” as you state that it is more reasonable to assume that your god is responsible for evolution rather than something we still do not fully understand.

    Please state a study which shows that most scientists agree that a god has to be invoked in order to embrace evolution. You’ll never find such a study. It is purely speculation on your part in a wish to further embrace your god in contemplating evolution.

    Regardless of our differences in belief, I commend you for your belief in evolution. Sadly, many religious people do not. I find it especially disheartening that here in the US, this rejection of evolution has led to the strong movement of the wish to teach the non-scientific and ultimately non-falsifiable hypothesis of creationism. Your assertion that evolution is a design hypothesis (it is its opposite entirely) fails completely and smacks of the irrationality of creationism. Peace.

  • Anonymous

    If you give your approval to such “forward-thinking” groups within the Catholic Church then I might point out that groups of Christians who wanted to change Roman doctrine have existed for centuries; they’re called protestants. As for your point on the failure of contraception in Britain allow me to elaborate the point: the education I can assure you is more than adequate to ensure that people know how to use condoms properly (I know this because I’m still having this education) and condoms are relatively easy to access and there are even short books and pamphlets written on the subject of where to obtain them and how to use them (the booklet AIDS and You springs to mind) yet Britain still has the single highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe (which was the failure that I mentioned before) and teenage pregancy and STIs remain a significant problem all over the developed world that can trace its roots to the so-called sexual revolution in the 1960s.

    Next you ask why condoms cannot be used while abstinence is being established. I see your point here and you are right about the position of the World Health Organisation but the spread of STIs is not the only problem in the area as I have said and just giving the men condoms allows them to do exactly as they are with no real insentive to change their behaiviour or to consider women’s rights in the matter and, of course, as we all know if men are still behaiving in the same way then there are far more oppurtunities for condoms to fail which they do on occasion meaning that the spread of AIDS, though it will be slowed down, will never stop entirely.

    Finally the sources you state that question the effectiveness of abstinence as a measure to prevent STIs. Perhaps I should have been clear. The point I wanted to make is that condoms still leave room for failure (allbeit not very much) even when used correctly wheras if abstinence is carried out to the full then there is no chance of picking up an STI. This isn’t the only part of the solution I plan to put forward. What I also think that we should to is have a more efficient program of getting harlots of the streets (as it is largely from them that men pick up AIDS) and enforcing a woman’s right to deny sex to her husband (particularly if she knows that he has an STI that he could potentially pass on to her or her potential child. If these measures are in place then I submit that the last piece of the puzzle will be to simply promote a mentality of mutual respect between married couples which, if in place, could convince the man that the woman is not a mere object of his desire and that his actions have consequences for her which is not helped by granting him a condom which allows him to carry on behaving as he is which, though it might keep AIDS at bay for a time at least, still leaves the woman where she is in an abusive relationship with a man who has little insentive to change his behaviour.

    Lastly you comment that “perhaps I see a secular response secondary to religious education and moral preachments.” I would have you note that, apart from my comments concerning women’s rights, this is entirely an argument based on logical deduction with no mention of the Bible, his Holiness or Church doctrine anywhere (apart from just then.) I hope this covers everything but please do highlight any points I might have missed out on.

  • Anonymous

    You behave as though God belongs to the confides of the Universe. That is a God of the Gaps but it is also a God that no sensible person believes in anymore. The God that any sensible theist or deist believes in is the God who set the laws of nature and is, as a result, quite free to feed new events into the system in spite of them (otherwise known as miracles.) Also abstract mathematical laws are entirely useless to create the Universe; they simply describe what happens. C.S. Lewis puts this rather well when he sais “all mathematical laws boil down to the statement “if you have A then you will get B” but first you need your A.”

    To put this another way the law you quote that 1+1=2 is simply descriptive; it tells us that 1+1=2 but it cannot bring either of the 1s or the 2 into existance – it does not even explain how they came into existance. This is, for anyone, the roll of God. If I am still being unclear then I would very much recommend you to the book: God and Stephen Hawking: Who’s Design is it Anyway? by John Lennox which is a theistic response to the Grand Design and argues the point much better than I do.

  • Anonymous

    I have to say that you rather amused me when you said that my view smacked of creationism. Perhaps I have stated my argument badly but if that is the case then I would recommend you to a book called God’s Undertaker which argues the case for theistic evolution very well.

    In the meantime I will clarify my statement about evolution and rationality. If atheistic evolution is true then what ultimately drove evolution was chance (along with mechanisms such as natural selection.) If that is true then our brains are ultimately derived from mindless and random processes with no purpose behind them and if that is true then why should we assume that it has any bearing on the matters in hand? In short why should irrational evolution give rise to a brain so rational that it is capable of deciphering evolution? To a theist this makes perfect sense; God designed the Universe and the human mind using the mechanism of evolution and so it is natural that the two should make sense together. I have yet to hear an atheist answer that question. (I should also mention here that when I mentioned the “Design Hypothesis” all I meant was the hypothesis that there was a design of some sort caused by some supernatural entity that we call God for ease of argument.)

    Also I very much want to clarify this “God of the Gaps” issue. You say that when a scientific discovery is made it eliminates the need for God but it does nothing of the sort. A scientific discovery answers the question of how a thing works and what material produces it but does provide all of the answers possible as to its origin and purpose. Think of it this way: a scientific analysis of a computer tells us all about the various circuits involved and can give us a perfect description of how it works without using the name of its inventor anywhere in the description; to quote Laplace “we have no need of the hypothesis of God.” However this complete and scientific analysis of the mechanisms of the computer cannot rule out the input of an agent (in this case a computer manufacturer) who works through the mechanisms. If we apply the same logic to evolution (which is infinitely more sophisticated than any computer) then we still have the problem that evolution to produce a successful organism would take far longer than is possible by irrational processes. I don’t want to invoke a creationist’s God of the Gaps here but I just want to say that evolution makes far more sense to me in the presence of a God who ensured evolution took the right path.

    I hope this makes sense but if I seem to be rambling I will reccomend you once again to God’s Undertaker which will provide more specifics on the point, but for now, as you put it, peace.

  • Anonymous

    The god of the gaps refers to the god that is invoked to explain gaps in our knowledge, gaps which are shrinking rapidly, so such a belief is increasingly absurd and unjustifiable..

    Why does the number 1 have to be brought into existence? Why cannot it exist without cause? Your claim that it requires a god to create it is merely assertion, without evidence; and since you have not defined the word “god” in clear, unambiguous terms your assertion is also meaningless. And even if you somehow come up with a non-vague definition of god, you still haven’t the slightest clue how the number 1 came into existence, so you are not getting anywhere! On top of that, what is it about this god that is different from the number 1, so that god does not need a creator but the number 1 does?

  • Bob

    How come so many atheists read the Catholic Herald?

  • Anonymous

    Speaking as an atheist, I read the Catholic Herald mainly for entertainment. I also believe that it is prudent to know what is going on in the minds of those with whom I share a planet.

  • Anonymous

    ““Devout” is probably the wrong word but “keen” or “committed” don’t quite convey his evangelical brand of atheism.”

    How about:

    enthusiastic
    energetic
    proselytising
    zealous
    unashamed
    emphatic

    - for example ?

    “devout” =///= “practicing”.

  • Ian

    There is no such thing as ‘atheistic evolution’, there is just ‘evolution’. Also, the ‘chance’ bit was the initial ingredients in order for evolution to take place. The subsequent natural selection part is not random at all.

  • http://twitter.com/PJTPOOAM Thomas Poovathinkal

    SOMETIMES BY OUR ARROGANT STANDS AND PRESENTATIONS WE CAN CREATE UNNECESSARY OPPOSITIONS AND EVEN ENEMIES.

  • http://twitter.com/PJTPOOAM Thomas Poovathinkal

    ONLY TRUE SEEKERS FIND GOD. READ SWAMI VIVEKANANDA ON JESUS.

    GO TO VOL. NO.VIII PAGE NO.190-191 OF COMPLETE WORKS – 13TH IMPRESSION, DECEMBER, 2002 KOLKATA – 700 014

  • Rupert Pelham

    Hello Thomas. Obviously, you are passionate about your beliefs. However, believe you me the use of CAPS LOCK is a fast track to less than awesome. Peace.

  • maddie

    Doesn’t mean all these peole are not stupid and delusional and worry more about death than life. We have one chance here – make the most of it. Stop worrying about after life- there is none.

  • Duke of Acquasparta

    Is it so small a thing, To have enjoyed the sun, To have
    lived light in the Spring, To have loved, to have thought, to have done; To
    have advanced true friends, and beat down baffling foes—That we must feign a
    bliss Of doubtful future date, And while we dream on this, Lose all our present
    state, And relegate to worlds…yet distant our repose?  — Matthew Arnold from his Empedocles on
    Etna, 1852

  • religion is dead

    15 million new Catholics joining the church annually?  Do you have statistics to support your claim?  Also, if your correct then I have to suspect that more than 15 million people become nonbelievers annually.  Why? simple as Achouston09 has stated “religion is in fact in decline” and it’s about time.

  • religion on the decline

    “In each of the past three years the number of people entering the faith (of any age) has dropped below 1 million. Since 1947, during only one other period, from 1973 to 1979, did the annual number of new U.S. Catholics number less than 1 million.”theLightisON.org |  Archdiocese Website”

  • Anonymous

    Blimey this post was ages ago but your response just cropped up on my email. I am sure there are Catholics lapsing all the time. Being a follower of Christ is not easy. If you do it properly then it is hard work. When these beliefs clash with peoples lifestyles they drop out.

    The Catholic Church is on the decline in the west, but is thriving in the East. The word is that because we have forgotten how to evangelise here that those from the East will come and re-evangelise the West in the near future.

    There is one thing that I think you have forgotten to take in to account and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It makes me laugh when I hear secularists and atheists criticising the Catholic Church and the Pope for being homophobic and sexist. The truth is that the evangelical and pentecostal churches are advancing and have added literally hundreds of millions to their global congregations in the last 60 years. If you think that the Catholic church is hard line then you haven’t seen anything yet.

    The Catholic church is popular fodder to attack because of its iconic nature. However, the truth is you will not find many clergy or laity being homophobic or sexist. Now I want to make it clear that I am not for one minute saying that the evangelical or pentecostal churches are homophobic or sexist. However, I think that you will find that both pastors and laity will have a more hard core approach to these issues.

    Q – Is religion on the decline?

    A= No, not when you add up the numbers of global Catholic, evangelical and pentecostal converts together. I think you will find the stark truth that it is definitely increasing. Have you ever watched GodTV recently?

  • Anonymous

    This post was ages ago but a response just cropped up on my email. I
    am sure there are Catholics lapsing all the time. Being a follower of
    Christ is not easy. If you do it properly then it is hard work. When
    these beliefs clash with peoples lifestyles they drop out.

    The
    Catholic Church is on the decline in the west, but is thriving in the
    East. The word is that because we have forgotten how to evangelise here
    that those from the East will come and re-evangelise the West in the
    near future.

    There is one thing that I think you have forgotten
    to take in to account and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
    It makes me laugh when I hear secularists and atheists criticising the
    Catholic Church and the Pope for being homophobic and sexist. The truth
    is that the evangelical and pentecostal churches are advancing and have
    added literally hundreds of millions to their global congregations in
    the last 60 years. If you think that the Catholic church is hard line
    then you haven’t seen anything yet.

    The Catholic church is
    popular fodder to attack because of its iconic nature. However, the
    truth is you will not find many clergy or laity being homophobic or
    sexist. Now I want to make it clear that I am not for one minute saying
    that the evangelical or pentecostal churches are homophobic or sexist.
    However, I think that you will find that both pastors and laity will
    have a more hard core approach to these issues.

    Q – Is religion on the decline?

    A=
    No, not when you add up the numbers of global Catholic, evangelical and
    pentecostal converts together. I think you will find the stark truth
    that it is definitely increasing. Have you ever watched GodTV recently? 

  • Anonymous

    The most common time when Christianity suddenly becomes appealing to an atheist is at the moment of death.

  • Anonymous

    This post was ages ago but your response just cropped up on my email. I
    am sure there are Catholics lapsing all the time. Being a follower of
    Christ is not easy. If you do it properly then it is hard work. When
    these beliefs clash with peoples lifestyles they drop out.

    The
    Catholic Church is on the decline in the west, but is thriving in the
    East. The word is that because we have forgotten how to evangelise here
    that those from the East will come and re-evangelise the West in the
    near future.

    There is one thing that I think you have forgotten
    to take in to account and it has nothing to do with the Catholic Church.
    It makes me laugh when I hear secularists and atheists criticising the
    Catholic Church and the Pope for being homophobic and sexist. The truth
    is that the evangelical and pentecostal churches are advancing and have
    added literally hundreds of millions to their global congregations in
    the last 60 years. If you think that the Catholic church is hard line
    then you haven’t seen anything yet.

    The Catholic church is
    popular fodder to attack because of its iconic nature. However, the
    truth is you will not find many clergy or laity being homophobic or
    sexist. Now I want to make it clear that I am not for one minute saying
    that the evangelical or pentecostal churches are homophobic or sexist.
    However, I think that you will find that both pastors and laity will
    have a more hard core approach to these issues.

    Q – Is religion on the decline?

    A=
    No, not when you add up the numbers of global Catholic, evangelical and
    pentecostal converts together. I think you will find the stark truth
    that it is definitely increasing. Have you ever watched GodTV recently?

  • Jesus died

    The Decline of the Catholic Church – Sex Abuse Scandal MetastasizesBy: David Dayen Sunday March 28, 2010 4:18 pmCatholics in crisisReeling from sex-abuse scandals, the Roman Catholic Church is losing members in droves. Can it stem the decline?POSTED ON APRIL 30, 2010, AT 3:58 PM

  • Steven

    I think the Atheists and Christians who are arguing about the merits of belief and disbelief on an article that is centred around the friendship of two human beings and the mutual respect that can be shown between two schools of thought are blind, selfish and caught up in their own evangelical/supposed “liberation of mind” biased. 

  • Pingback: survivorship application

  • Pingback: visit my website