Well, in case there was any doubt, we now have an ex cathedra announcement from the hierarchy of the New York Times:
“At some point, the church will accept contraception and female and non-celibate priests. Could it be in the next papacy?” – Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times
Although I ought to be used to it by now, I still find the parochialism of liberal secular elites stunning. Their small-minded preoccupation with sex and gender is, in its way, amusing. A pope abdicates for the first time in centuries, and what immediately pops into the mind of Nicholas Kristof and his ilk? Contraception, women’s ordination, and celibacy. Oy vey.
Also amusing is his uncritical–indeed unthinking–embrace of Hegelian-Marxian certainty about the trajectory of history. “At some point, the church will [embrace the ideology of the New York Times editorial board]. It just will, you see. History is open to no other possibilities. It’s a done deal. Already determined. Kristof was no doubt prevented only by the character limit on Twitter from saying “the correlation of forces . . . .”
February 11th, 2013 | 1:10 pm
Richard Dawkins tweets today: “I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex.”
Yes, yes, it’s the conservatives who are obsessed with sex. Always.
February 11th, 2013 | 1:23 pm
HEY, HEY, HEY – That’s a bit simplistic: We’re also obsessed with race. Will the next pope be Caucasian – or not? Will the next pope come from Africa or Central America?
See, we have a broader range of petty obsessions than people give us credit for….
February 11th, 2013 | 2:18 pm
Also amusing is his uncritical—indeed unthinking—embrace of Hegelian-Marxian certainty about the trajectory of history.
This strikes me as overkill. I don’t think anyone has to embrace any particular theory of the trajectory of history to think something will happen one day.
Even today, celibacy is not required of all priests. Contraception is so widely practiced that it seems already to be tolerated. And I don’t think it is at all impossible that some form of fertility regulation, perhaps a method not even discovered or invented yet, will be officially approved. As for women priests, I don’t think it is impossible . . . in a century or ten.
But why does anyone even care what Nicholas Kristof and Richard Dawkins think? There must be hundreds or thousands of comments about the pope’s resignation that are worth taking note of. Why go after such low-value, easy targets?
February 11th, 2013 | 2:19 pm
And then there’s conservatives’ misplaced obsession with, and confusion about, the “hierarchy of the New York Times.” Kristof is not on the “the New York Times editorial board,” but is rather, like Ross Douthat, a paid columnist.
February 11th, 2013 | 2:36 pm
Oh, come on. The public understanding of “ex cathedra” is already so confused, why are you helping to muddy the water further? Do you really think the Pope’s tweets so far have been ex cathedra, too?
Indeed, what makes you think that tweet was an official pronouncement of the NYT versus just Kristof?
February 11th, 2013 | 3:09 pm
Mr. Collier:
Indeed. However, you might forgive conservatives for having difficulty imagining Mr. Kristof’s betters on the editorial board differing with him on this point.
February 11th, 2013 | 3:41 pm
We have control over the future, and have to choose if we want a postgendered transhuman future where some people are made from lab created genes, or a sexual human where all people are created equal, as the children of a mother and father who reproduced sexually.
Sometimes people think a transhuman future is inevitable, that all we can do is watch it unfold, and maybe hurry it along or slow it down by being “on the wrong side of history” but they are propagandists; they know that depression and despair is their best ally. They think we really really get rid of dirty sex and make better humans and colonize space and eliminate disease and death, it is really a misanthropic dissatisfaction with real life compared to science fiction fantasy.
Anyhoo, my point is that we control this decision, right here right now. We can choose to preserve sex and equality, or we can choose Transhumanism. Believe it or not, that is the question that gay marriage asks. Choose gay marriage is choosing transhumanism, rejecting gay marriage is choosing to preserve equality and human dignity.
February 11th, 2013 | 3:58 pm
I had to go to Richard Dawkins twitter page to confirm that he did post that infantile and obnoxious comment. Unfortunately he did.
It is utterly embarrassing that a grown man and influential public intellectual would be so idiotic in public.
February 11th, 2013 | 3:59 pm
David Nickol,
Nicholas Kristof and Richard Dawkins are low-value, easy targets?
And remarking on public, global comments that they have made is to “go after” them?
JDD
February 11th, 2013 | 4:40 pm
Nicholas Kristof and Richard Dawkins are low-value, easy targets?
JDD,
When it comes to making comments about the Catholic Church that are at all important to Catholics, they are very low-value, very very easy targets. What Catholic in the world gives two hoots what Kristof and Dawkins say about the Church?
In other areas, Dawkins and Kristof are to be taken very seriously. But who could care less what they say on Twitter about the pope’s resignation? I personally think Twitter is a complete waste of time (and Facebook, too). How can anyone take seriously a comment limited to 140 characters and called a “tweet”?
February 11th, 2013 | 4:51 pm
@George
Take heart: Pope Benedict and many ecclesiastics like him feel sorry for Richard Dawkins, but with true pity: i.e. without rubbing his nose in it.
February 11th, 2013 | 4:56 pm
I think he meant those particular tweets are easy targets, but shooting them down doesn’t take down the whole left wing liberal establishment or those men in particular either, so the triumphalism in pointing out those tweets is overkill.
But I do think we should have a discussion about the future and how we want it to be. I can do it in 140 characters I think: @Pontifex Please help us preserve male and female and natural reproduction, support my Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise for the world.
February 11th, 2013 | 4:59 pm
It’s interesting to note that the same liberal voices are calling for the same changes from the Vatican.
The Pope cannot change the rules concerning female “Preists”. He can lift the rules of an all celibate Priesthood, and the Church does have a number of married Priests.
The important part is that a celibate can always be a Priest (and model Christ) …and a cellibate Preisthood must always be recognized.
Although I dont think it will or should happen, a lifting of the requirment that all Preists be celibate would most liklely follow the Easter form were upon ordination if a Preist is not married he must commit himself to celibacy and all Bishops are taken from te ranks of the celibate.
As far as birth control goes, theirs no reason to change the treachings at this point. Natural family planning has been proven succesfull and effective enough to viciate any practical need to lift the timeless teaching.
Humane Vitia proved so prophetic and the slide into sexual decadance so immediate that it would be like shooting oneself in the foot to change the teaching now.
We have an oportunity now to start teaching the Church’s stance on birth control as part of a comprehensive sexual education. The sexual revolutionries are simply growing older and their revolution is something they will take to their grave.
February 11th, 2013 | 5:19 pm
Mr. Nickol,
How are we to know when to take Mr. Kristof and Dr. Dawkins seriously? You’ve hinted, helpfully, that it will never be whenever they’re tweeting. Still, their opinions are certainly more likely to be taken seriously than mine, or I daresay those of anyone in this combox, by virtue of the fact that opining is their stock in trade (well, at least in Mr. Kristof’s case). If we are to dismiss their opinions based on their non-membership in the church, are we to then conclude that we should dismiss the opinions of all non-Catholics on this topic?
February 11th, 2013 | 6:02 pm
[David Nickol] “In other areas, Dawkins and Kristof are to be taken very seriously. But who could care less what they say on Twitter about the pope’s resignation?”
Because much of the pop culture does care, and it is a wise Catholic who is in tune with his generation and points to the trends evidenced by it. Read the topic of this thread again.
February 12th, 2013 | 12:31 am
Heh. The Pope’s thinking will “evolve.”
February 12th, 2013 | 1:29 am
He’s right, he just forgot to mention that it will occur outside of historical time and in his dreams.
February 12th, 2013 | 9:00 am
Peter Hundt
I should take Richar Dawkins seriously, when he writes about zoology and Nicholas Kristof when he writes about Darfur.
In the same way, I should take a theologian seriously, when h e writes about the the priority of Mark or the authorship of the Pastorals, but not when he writes about economics.
February 12th, 2013 | 11:56 am
“I should take Richar Dawkins seriously, when he writes about zoology and Nicholas Kristof when he writes about Darfur.”
Michael PS, David Nichol, et al,
No-one’s talking as if Catholics should be studying Kristof or Dawkins to enhance their own understanding of the faith. The point is that we should be aware that they are drivers of national conversation, with large followings, and we should take the opportunity to respond shrewdly in kind.
Whether they are qualified or not, their readership thinks they are qualified – and takes their observations as trustworthy. If it’s low-lying fruit, it’s also the fruit most-consumed.
February 12th, 2013 | 1:59 pm
. . . . and we should take the opportunity to respond shrewdly in kind.
JDD,
To anyone predisposed to take Nicholas Kristof seriously on the topic of the Catholic Church, exactly what do you think they would make of Robert George’s message? It wasn’t meant to correct mistaken impressions Kristof may have given. It was written for “insiders” who already have formed their opinions of Kristof, the Times, and the “liberal secular elite.”
To anyone who might say to themselves, “I think the Church will one day change its positions, and I wonder if Kristof is right that it could be the next pope who does it,” what do you think they would make of the “Hegelian-Marxian certainty about the trajectory of history”?
Incidentally, I don’t think it is all that naive to think that the issue of contraception is forever settled. Humanae Vitae is only 45 years old. In the history of the Church, 45 years is very little time. It has been widely rejected. And even though everyone knows that most Catholics of childbearing age use contraception, there has been nothing remotely resembling a “crackdown.”
February 12th, 2013 | 2:07 pm
Humanae Vitae is 45 years old; the teaching against contraception is a couple thousand.
February 12th, 2013 | 2:26 pm
Minding that I’m an Agnostic, and don’t have any trouble with contraception…
That Humanae Vitae is only 45 years old should be understood in context – only recently (relatively) has effectove contraception been available. As for the fact that most Catholics of child bearing age use or have used contraception, well I’d venture that most Catholics have lied, coveted other people’s things, and have failed to honor their parents. We’re all sinners – but that doesn’t make it right. As for a crackdown – I’m not sure how the church would do that other than, say, declining to pay for it for their employees.
February 12th, 2013 | 2:40 pm
True, there have been teachings against contraceptives down through the ages. Yet the majority report of the papal commission that provided the foundation for Humanae vitae approved of the use of contraceptives in some circumstances. See Health Care Ethics: A Catholic Theological Analysis, Fifth Edition, Georgetown University Press (2005) at 76-77.
History shows that Pope Paul VI rejected this majority view. Polls show that the majority of Catholics reject Pope Paul’s view.
February 12th, 2013 | 2:58 pm
[R. George] “Also amusing is his uncritical—indeed unthinking—embrace of Hegelian-Marxian certainty about the trajectory of history.”
[David Nickol] “This strikes me as overkill. I don’t think anyone has to embrace any particular theory of the trajectory of history to think something will happen one day.”
I happen to agree with David Nickol that this bit was overkill as written.
Nontheless it’s worth noting the base assumption – evidenced by Kristof – that *anything* the Church teaches is merely a creation of men, and therefore can change if minds can be changed. In this way of thinking, God is at most a spectator to human history, and Christianity is merely a human construct drawn along history’s trajectory rather than holding to its own. Naturally one would then continue to seed the culture with their own opinions – particularly within hours of the announcement of the next papal conclave – and hope that the *next* guy would see it their way.
February 12th, 2013 | 3:27 pm
[David Nickol] “…It wasn’t meant to correct mistaken impressions Kristof may have given. It was written for “insiders” who already have formed their opinions of Kristof, the Times, and the “liberal secular elite.””
You seem to have it all worked out and are attacking the tone. I won’t spend too much time trying to dissuade you. Other than to point out that Mr. George must have mistakenly posted to the “Public” website rather than the “Insider” one…
Actually, Mr. Nichol, I am perhaps a prime example of one who benefited. I – like you – don’t follow Twitter. I was made aware of the comment by this conversation thread, and am now better prepared to respond. Maybe it was written to me.
Or perhaps there are readers of Mr. Kristof and this website who are disposed to have cultural trends pointed out to them, and to seriously reflect upon them.
Or perhaps the post was meant to prick the conscience of people like yourself who will continue to try for ‘more dialougue’ on conversations which have not been settled your way.
[DN] “And even though everyone knows that most Catholics of childbearing age use contraception, there has been nothing remotely resembling a “crackdown.””
Indeed – in some areas perhaps God alone is capable. I wonder what you would suggest for a “crackdown”, and for verification, and enforcement?
February 12th, 2013 | 4:24 pm
Humanae Vitae is 45 years old; the teaching against contraception is a couple thousand.
Anna Williams,
But how old is the Church’s teaching on what we now refer to as “natural family planning”? About 80 years old. How old is the Church’s teaching that sex in marriage is both procreative and unitive? (Just to throw this in, within my lifetime, I have seen the teachings of the Church about the Jews change dramatically.)
The question I have implied a number of times is whether there is some method of fertility control that is neither NFP nor abstinence (periodic or otherwise) that remains to be invented or discovered that will meet with Church approval. I think it is possible.
Not to throw in too many references, but up until the 1930s, it was absolutely forbidden to intervene in an ectopic pregnancy until it became a crisis or until the sixth month of the pregnancy. The only thing that changed in the 1930s was that T. Lincoln Bouscaren invented a new rationale for surgery that no one had previously proposed.
I don’t expect any future pope to “repeal” Humanae Vitae, but it would be rash to think that it is the last word on human fertility, especially if you expect the human race, and the Church, to be around a hundred or a thousand years from now.
February 12th, 2013 | 4:33 pm
I wonder what you would suggest for a “crackdown”, and for verification, and enforcement?
JDD,
We’re getting far afield here, but I’ve noted a number of times that “conservative” Catholics complain that there are never any sermons on contraception. What I would propose as a “crackdown” would be a major pastoral letter from the USCCB, to be read in every church in the country, saying very emphatically that artificial contraception was absolutely prohibited, that it was not a matter on which Catholics could claim to follow their own consciences, that its use was a mortal sin, and that absolutely no one (under pain of further mortal sin) who used artificial contraception should receive communion. To the best of my knowledge, not even the most conservative of bishops has done anything like that, let alone the USCCB. (If I am mistaken, I’d be more than happy to be corrected. I don’t have informants in every diocese!)
February 12th, 2013 | 4:40 pm
JDD,
Okay, suppose someone now says, “Hey, JDD, I hear Nicholas Kristof said on Twitter, ‘At some point, the church will accept contraception and female and non-celibate priests. Could it be in the next papacy?’ He’s a columnist for the New York Times, you know, so he must know what he’s talking about.”
How would you use Robert George’s message above to respond?
February 12th, 2013 | 5:33 pm
Hello nobody,
Yet the majority report of the papal commission that provided the foundation for Humanae vitae approved of the use of contraceptives in some circumstances.
With respect, the majority was wrong, and the Pope recognized that.
February 12th, 2013 | 10:10 pm
A pope abdicates for the first time in centuries, and what immediately pops into the mind of Nicholas Kristof and his ilk? Contraception, women’s ordination, and celibacy.
It’s been a while since I’ve done this, but worth a try. Perhaps the editors of First Thoughts would like to review every blog post for the last year. Has a single seven day period passed without at least one post about contraception or sex? Actually for that matter has a single seven day period passed without at least one post that has something to do with homosexuality? I have a sneaky feeling it would be a lot easier to find entire months where Nicholas Kristof said nothing about the Catholic Church.
One would wonder what an alien on the other side of the galaxy whose only information on Catholic Christianity was tapping into the First Thoughts blogfeed would make of it.
February 13th, 2013 | 8:15 am
Funny to see how conservatives talk about the parochialism of the liberal mind for worrying about sex and gender, when they themselves are obsessed with traditional family and homosexuals not gaining equal rights with the rest of the citizens…
February 13th, 2013 | 11:30 am
[David Nickol] “How would you use Robert George’s message above to respond?”
The same way I just responded above – but perhaps our posts crossed in the mail.
I’d include – again – the topic sentence of this article, and ask them if there’s anything ELSE they were wondering if the next Pope was going to change, anything else worth discussing. The Church’s stance on poverty, perhaps?
I’d follow up by asking if they’d ever read either Crossing the Threshold of Hope by JPII or Deus Caritas Est.
February 13th, 2013 | 12:13 pm
[Boonton] “One would wonder what an alien on the other side of the galaxy whose only information on Catholic Christianity was tapping into the First Thoughts blogfeed would make of it.”
Okay, has _anyone_ read the title of this thread?
My guess is that an alien culture, taking the time to study the goals of the Journal, might conclude that it was holding a mirror up to the Culture.
February 13th, 2013 | 12:14 pm
Clarification – a mirror up to the human culture!
February 13th, 2013 | 12:19 pm
[Boonton] “I have a sneaky feeling it would be a lot easier to find entire months where Nicholas Kristof said nothing about the Catholic Church.”
Jackpot. What does it tell you about both Mr. Kristof and the environment in which he wishes to make an impact that this is the first statement he makes?
February 13th, 2013 | 2:53 pm
I acknowledge beating this to death and approaching what Robert George said in much the same way I find fault with Robert George for approaching what Nicholas Kristof said. Having admitted that, I still think it is foolish to psychoanalyze Nicholas Kristof for a tweet! And of course in an atmosphere where the Catholic Church is waging an unprecedented campaign against the Obama administration over contraception, I don’t think it is at all curious for someone like Nicholas Kristof to think of contraception when he thinks of the pope.
We seem to live in an atmosphere where any trivial thing (like Marco Rubio pausing for a drink of water during a televised speech) can be treated as meaningful and even sensational.
February 13th, 2013 | 3:47 pm
“And of course in an atmosphere where the Catholic Church is waging an unprecedented campaign against the Obama administration over contraception”
A parting shot? You would have done better leaving this sentence out.
So the Catholic Church, feeling antsy, a few years ago decided that things were so great and stable, and that we had so much of a groundswell of favorable opinion among the culture at large, that we’d try to conquer some new ground – and the Obama administration had to scramble to man the gates, hm? Now you really have gone off the rails. A correction for you – the aggressor has been this Presidency, and the Church’s efforts are a counteroffensive.
February 13th, 2013 | 5:17 pm
Now you really have gone off the rails. A correction for you – the aggressor has been this Presidency, and the Church’s efforts are a counteroffensive.
JDD,
I wouldn’t object too much to counteroffensive, although I don’t really think the Obama administration said, “Let’s have a contraceptive mandate to see if we can undermine the Church.” I think that’s paranoia. One might accuse Obama of simply not caring enough, but I don’t think that constitutes an offensive against the Church. I think I have made it clear that the contraceptive mandate, in its original form, at least, was a genuine issue of religious liberty.
However you look at it, it’s not as if contraception would be the last thing to come to mind when thinking of the Catholic Church.
February 13th, 2013 | 5:30 pm
JDD
My guess is that an alien culture, taking the time to study the goals of the Journal, might conclude that it was holding a mirror up to the Culture.
Perhaps or perhaps it is a culture in its own right. Is the culture really preoccupied with homosexuality and First Thoughts is holding a mirror up to it by doing the topic once, twice or more every week or is it the reverse?
February 14th, 2013 | 1:05 am
Also amusing is his uncritical–indeed unthinking–embrace of Hegelian-Marxian certainty about the trajectory of history.
What is the basis of George’s certainty that Kristof embraces an “Hegelian-Marxian” (a fine example of a contradictio in terminis, by the way) historical approach? How does he know that Kristof isn’t, in fact, employing some variant of a Kantian, or a Spencerian, or a even a Whiggish theory of history?
February 14th, 2013 | 8:35 am
[Boonton] “Is the culture really preoccupied with homosexuality and First Thoughts is holding a mirror up to it by doing the topic once, twice or more every week or is it the reverse?”
Have the cultural developments been there to merit coverage? In the past few months, Chick fil-A and the Boy Scouts have been in the news daily as well. And why have you narrowed your question to homosexuality, and left out the three categories Mr. Kristof listed? The Susan B. Komen Foundation and the DHHS would then join the list of players.
Either way, in answer to the larger question, do a study of the trends in entertainment, art, music, etc – the ways in which we express our values – and get back to me.
February 14th, 2013 | 11:28 pm
JDD
In the past few months, Chick fil-A and the Boy Scouts have been in the news daily as well. And why have you narrowed your question to homosexuality,
But the larger media does not presume to just ‘lift a mirror’ to culture. If it did, news reports would have to report most of the time that most people woke up today, went off to whatever they do during most days, and came home.
We can’t talk much about Mr. Kristof from a single tweat anymore than it would be fair to talk about First Things from a single blog post. I mean not to long ago there was a post about Tolkien and the Beatles. FT ain’t your goto source for either fandom.
But I can talk about FT in general since I’ve watched it off and on for a while and yea homosexuality shows up quite a bit. I suppose we can excuse sex and contraceptions howing up so often because most people have a sex life of something or other and opposiste sex couples who are fertile do have to consider conception. Chances are homosexuality is not an issue in most people’s day to day life, though. So it is odd that it merits so many mentions here.
February 15th, 2013 | 10:46 am
“Chances are homosexuality is not an issue in most people’s day to day life, though. So it is odd that it merits so many mentions here.”
In the case of Boy Scouts of America, it is possible that boys in this organization will soon be taught – at the very least through the example of acceptance and endorsement of leaders – that a male member of the species can be healthily emotionally and sexually attracted to a female member of the species…or a male member of the species, it doesn’t matter and makes no difference whatsoever. Those boys will go on to be leaders and have influence in the community and government. Whether you are a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Atheist, you will be affected by this issue.
If you object to the amount of commentary based on the, “What others choose to believe and do doesn’t affect me,” philosophy, then I understand that it will continue to be an annoyance – maybe even an enigma – that First Things and other forums don’t simply drop it.
I think that is a flawed argument, and in these pages, many posters have put forth reasons why homosexuality and the other sexual practices mentioned impact society: issues of understanding of the human person, male and female differences and complementarity, even the reasons for marriage and procreation, and the attention that any government should give to these social arrangements called marriage. You’ll have to decide for yourself whether any of those arguments have merit and whether you personally have a stake in the outcome.
February 15th, 2013 | 2:01 pm
that a male member of the species can be healthily emotionally and sexually attracted to a female member of the species…or a male member of the species, it doesn’t matter and makes no difference whatsoever
JDD,
Are you concerned that this will result in more males being attracted to other males? Or perhaps that all males will eventually become attracted to other males, and the species will die out?
What is the threat you see in a change in attitudes toward homosexuality, other than that something you think is morally unacceptable will become more widely acceptable? I can see a legitimate concern if something like stealing were to be promoted as morally acceptable. It would be a threat to property and social order. But the only threat I see from a wider acceptance of homosexuality is . . . a wider acceptance of homosexuality.
February 15th, 2013 | 4:45 pm
[David Nickol] “What is the threat … I can see a legitimate concern if something like stealing were to be promoted as morally acceptable.”
Most people believe stealing is wrong, but never stop to think about why. Stealing is wrong because when a person steals, they don’t trust God to provide for a perceived need. They are then acting in a way less than fully alive, less than fully human, made in the Image and Likeness of God. The Catholic looks at the question of homosexual behaviour in a similar way, as if to say that homosexual actions are wrong and a certain passion is disordered in the same way that stealing is wrong and a desire to steal things is another passion disordered. The intent being to uphold the true dignity of the human person. The threat to society when human persons forget a central, intrinsic part of who they are has been already expounded upon in previous conversations, and touched on in my post above.
David, I understand your point of view. You believe stealing is contrary to human dignity but homosexual behaviour isn’t. You think sexual attraction within the human person may be equally directed towards the opposite gender or the same gender, and that both are natural human activities, and that gender really is kind of just a decision that evolution made with humanity, (though with decidely un-evolutionary benefit.) You’ve made your position known, and I’ve made my position known. In another conversation, you couldn’t even bring yourself to acknowledge one example of complementarity between male and female. If we can’t come to some consensus on what gender even is, and why it matters, then it will be difficult to go much further.
February 16th, 2013 | 7:07 am
JDD
In the case of Boy Scouts of America, it is possible that boys in this organization will soon be taught – at the very least through the example of acceptance and endorsement of leaders – that a male member of the species can be healthily emotionally and sexually attracted to a female member of the species…or a male member of the species, it doesn’t matter and makes no difference whatsoever. Those boys will go on to be leaders and have influence in the community and government. Whether you are a Christian, Jew, Buddhist or Atheist, you will be affected by this issue.
No I won’t and neither will most kids. First gay people exist whether or not Scouts lets them in and kids know that. Second while my stay in Scouts was brief it was long enough to know the last thing you want in a scout leader is any type of discussion of his sex life….even if it’s supposedly a ‘normal heterosexual married’ one.
February 18th, 2013 | 9:47 am
[Booton] “No I won’t and neither will most kids.”
‘No I won’t'…what? Boonton, you’ve made a statement and then listed a bunch of points I didn’t mention, while ignoring the ones I did.
[Boonton] “First gay people exist whether or not Scouts lets them in and kids know that.”
This is not in question.
[Boonton] “… the last thing you want in a scout leader is any type of discussion of his sex life….”
And neither is this.
You’ve made exactly the same mistake that others have made in similar discussion threads – read motives into conservative objections, (mine in this case,) that simply aren’t there.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact