About that "Nobel Prize nominee"...he's a phony.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiav...o/ infopage.html
http://abstractappeal.com/schiav...torder11- 02.txt

Dr. Hammesfahr operates his clinic on a cash basis in advance which made the discussion regarding Medicare eligibility quite irrelevant. A lot of the time also was spent regarding his nominations for a Nobel Prize.

While he certainly is a self-promoter and should have had for the court's review a copy of the letter from the Nobel committee in Stockholm, Sweden, the truth of the matter is that he is probably the only person involved in these proceedings who had a United States Congressman recommend him for such an award.

Whether the committee "accepted" the nomination, "received" the nomination or whatever, it is not that significant. What is significant, however, and what undermines his creditability is that he did not present to this court any evidence other than his generalized statements as to the efficacy of his therapy on brain damaged individuals like Terry Schiavo.

He testified that he has treated about 50 patients in the same or worse condition than Terry Schiavo since 1994 but he offered no names, no case studies, no videos and no tests results to support his claim that he had success in all but one of them.

If his therapy is as effective as he would lead this court to believe, it is inconceivable that he would not produce clinical results of these patients he has treated. And surely the medical literature would be replete with this new, now patented, procedure. Yet, he has only published one article and that was in 1995 involving some 63 patients, 60% of whom were suffering from whiplash. None of these patients were in a persistent vegetative state and all were conversant.
TulsaHuman | 02.22.05 - 6:23 pm | #

The prior commenter tosses around the term "persistent vegetative state" as if it meant "coma," which it does not. According to my reading, the term is a point of disagreement among professionals, and does NOT necessarily mean that a person is unconscious, or that she is not sensient. No amount of trashing Dr. Hammesfahr can detract from that central, relevant issue.
Dean | Homepage | 02.22.05 - 7:14 pm | #

She's not Sunny von Bulow. Sunny's a veggie. Terry isn't. She's trapped in there, and while I might not choose her life, I don't think we can just let her starve to death. She's not going to gently stop breathing without the feeding tube, she's going to starve and she might just know what's going to happen. This case is very complex and her sleazeball, greedhead hubby isn't helping. Why doesn't he just divorce her and let her parents take over?
Rachel Cohen | 02.22.05 - 7:30 pm | #

I've seen the video of Terri and to delude yourself that Terri is indeed in a vegetative state is to be irresponsible as a human being and even worse when condemning her to death.

I guess we have to find a way to kill the right people. I find it horrifying that people are trying to find a way to do just that.

I hated Hitler for his hand in weeding out the population for heredity's sake. And to see his work perpetuated vis-a-vi in the right to die argument that conveniently aims toward the realm of the disabled, it emboldens me to stand up and fight until all that are innocent in society, not only the animals, but the elderly, the sick, the unborn, the disabled are not seen as a hinderance, but are meant to bring out the best of humanity.
Lark | 02.22.05 - 7:38 pm | #

http://abstractappeal.com/ is an excellent site setting forth the facts of the case.

Regarding her medical condition, abstractappeal notes the following:

"Thus, the quality of the evidence presented to the guardianship court was very high, and each side had ample opportunity to present detailed medical evidence, all of which was subjected to thorough cross-examination. It is likely that no guardianship court has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding."

If you are arguing that Ms. Schiavo's feeding tubes should not be removed, it has to be for one of two reasons

(a) you thinked that the court erred in finding the following:

"In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did." (This is from the Appelate Court decision in the case and is taken from http://abstractappeal.com/schiav.../infopage.html)

or

(b) you don't think anyone should ever be allowed to refuse medical treatment/feeding tubes.

If you think that the courts erred in their findings and opinions, I guess the best that you can do is help her parents keep up the current fight to overturn their decisions/findings.

If you think that no one should be allowed to refuse medical treatment, well I guess you need to start lobbying legislators to change the law.

Two final points, I don't feel that I am in any position to make judgments about her condition based upon videos I've seen or articles I've read. The courts have, for several years been presented with much more detailed evidence (that has undergone rigorous scrutiny from Ms. Schiavo's parents and their attorneys) than will ever be presented on the various webpages devoted to Ms. Schiavo's case.

Second, I hope for all of the trashing and vilifying of Michael Schiavo, that you are in fact right, that he is a greedy, sleazeball and not a loving devoted husband who is making a gut wrenching decision to fulfil his wife's wishes.
Fluffy Bunny | 02.22.05 - 8:49 pm | #

I'm quite p&ssed with this. I went and watched the videos a couple of weeks ago and was astounded that this is even in question. And then TODAY, the judge allowed them to continue to remove the feeding tube. This lady is simply DISABLED. She can't feed herself. Otherwise, she is totally conscious.
What can we do about this??? Call the president?
It comes down to money and quality of life. People think that we can judge the value of life and then kill it off if it doesn't make financial sense.
Terri's husband is a selfish, money-driven, slime-bucket. I will pray that God has vengence against this guy whether or not Terri lives. In the meantime I will also pray that Jeb or George W steps in. This is freaking ridiculous.
I'm not a cursing person, but man this makes me want to utter some shameful comments.
-Neil
Neil | 02.22.05 - 8:52 pm | #

Rachel Cohen: "This case is very complex and her sleazeball, greedhead hubby isn't helping. Why doesn't he just divorce her and let her parents take over?"

Why, indeed, Rachel! Should they take over and should she recover her ability to speak and remember what exactly happened to her, what could she really tell us about her husband, that he doesn't want anyone to know?
John Hetman | 02.22.05 - 8:59 pm | #

Food and water are not "medical treatment". They are basic necessities. My baby can't feed herself, either.
Kristin | 02.22.05 - 9:12 pm | #

Dawn -

Sorry about the second trackback, it was intended for Overtaken.
J. A. Gillmartin | Homepage | 02.22.05 - 9:34 pm | #

More from the Abstract Appeal site:

"At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs."

If someone doesn't have a cortex, they don't have a functioning HUMAN brain. Period.

More:

"The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:

"At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli."

No cortex, no cognition.
TulsaHuman | 02.22.05 - 11:31 pm | #

FluffyBunny and Tulsahuman:

I see you're making your way around the blogs again. Trolling my blog in the fall of '03 and in '04 wasn't satisfying enough, so now you're trying to push your patter on another.

Readers, if you go back into the archives of my blog for the Fall of '03, you'll see a series of comments posted under a variety of other names which are practically verbatim clones of FluffyBunnyTulsahuman's.

And the thing is, FluffyBunnyTulsahuman (why do jokers like you never use a real name?), when it comes to Dr. Hammesfahr (that's who you're talking about) you're just plain wrong, and I have the documents to prove it. Medicare did extensive reviews of Hammesfahr's work and judged it "medically necessary". They approved his treatments for Medicare, which by law cannot pay for unproven or experimental treatments.

The thing is, Hammesfahr isn't the only one who says Terri isn't PVS. Other neurologists (among them a radiologist specializing in neurology) have said the same thing. This isn't surprising, since the definition of PVS itself precludes any awareness of one's environment or response to stimuli. by that definition Terri cannot be classified as PVS.

Next, I imagine you'll trot out some of the stuff from "Quackwatch", which is critical of Hammesfahr and his treatment. Of course, the stuff from Quackwatch is based on a matter which was little more than a glorified billing dispute, which never would have gone anywhere if Hammesfahr hadn't hacked off the Florida Board of Medicine. The problem is that Quackwatch isn't some sort of "official" site. It contains the collected opinions of its contributors, which may be just as reliable or unreliable as anyone else's.

So, FluffyBunnyTulsahuman, why don't you take your song and dance somewhere else now. Your patter is getting old and tired.

Dawn, you keep right on going!
Fr. Rob Johansen | Homepage | 02.22.05 - 11:54 pm | #

hey dawn,
i can't help but wonder if you're so interested in saving lives, then why don't you make more of an effort to help the hundrends of thousands of people who were killed in the tsunami? or is airchair activism where your mission stops?
Monica | 02.23.05 - 12:59 am | #

Monica-- [deleted]. You're [deleted].

I'm not as pro-life as many posters here but I think Terry's case is an esp. troubling one. If her husband wasn't a sleazeball, then why won't he turn over her guardianship to her parents? He's already got most of the money, a new "wife" and a family. What's his interest? If he was so loving and devoted, he wouldn't have hooked up with Miss Available. (And who hooks up with a guy whose wife is in a coma?)
If Terry was just inches away from death, I might not feel so strongly, but since she'll be starved and starved for a while, I'm not so sure that's a great idea.

Edited By Siteowner
Rachel Cohen | 02.23.05 - 1:07 am | #

and you rachel? when's the last time you actually went out and acted, instead of using meaningless words to make yourself feel more validated?

perhaps he's not a "murderer"--rather someone who no longer wants his beloved to suffer.

thanks for your sage advice rachel. i'm guessing you get angry and fly off the handle frequently.
Monica | 02.23.05 - 1:16 am | #

Alright, kids, knock off the cussing, or I use my omnipotence to click the "delete" button on your comments.

Monica, you WOULD throw a completely unrelated, below-the-belt insult at my charitableness only 24 hours after I removed the big tsunami-relief banner that had been on this blog since the beginning of January. Clearly you're only here because your Third Wave Feminist pals told you to stop by and bash the pro-lifers, otherwise you'd know that.

Tulsa Human, watch the video that I linked to, and then tell me if Terri Schiavo is "unconscious." There is a difference between "unconscious" and "locked-in." People who are locked-in can and often do come out, but they need rehabilitation, which Michael Schiavo has refused to provide--though he's quite happy to take several hundred thousand dollars in court winnings earmarked for Terri's rehab, and spend it on his fight to kill her. This man has willfully deceived courts and insurance companies, and has no credibility whatsoever.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 1:28 am | #

i consider my type of thinking to be "not-hypocritical".
Monica | 02.23.05 - 1:32 am | #

Hypocrisy is the virtue that made the Declaration of Independence possible. If Thomas Jefferson weren't a hypocrite, the DoI could not have been written.
Joseph Hertzlinger | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 2:13 am | #

Joseph...huh? You lost me. Thomas Jefferson a hypocrite? Please explain.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 2:30 am | #

folks usually call T.J. a hypocrite because he was a slave owner. We're all hypocritical to one degree or another. It's self-awareness, forgiveness of others, and an ability to act in positive ways that extend beyond our own flaws that makes us better. It doesn't make us perfect. KI
Karl Ikola | 02.23.05 - 4:49 am | #

Dear Fluffy Bunny and Tulsa Human, Well _I_ love you and appreciate you. I don't think you would take the time to argue by way of your comments unless the Terri Schiavo case struck a note in your own hearts and souls. Obviously, you are not waving a flag for killing. You are wrestling with issues of when life begins and when it ends. May I only humbly tell you that one of my patients, who is a quadriplegic and virtually speechless, has MRIs which show that a very large portion of his brain is now gone, filled in by fluid; yet, after 20 years and multi-hours of therapies, he has a high quality of life, can communicate, swallows food fed to him, expresses his thoughts and emotions, receives much joy from socializing with friends and family. This is a great miracle! The MRIs and brief Independent Medical Exams cannot do full justice to his case. Add to this the obstacle I have encountered when I have gone to court with this patient and others who do not speak: the judge _treats_ the individual as a "vegetable", speaking of him in the third person, not looking at him and not asking him any questions. I hope that TH and FB will stay in these arguments. I hope that we will consider their thoughts and that they will consider the thoughts of others, hopefully being lovingly affected by both.
Dawn's Mom | 02.23.05 - 8:24 am | #

Fr. Rob Johansen,

Sorry, but I've never been to your site. As for my real name, it's in my email web link, which you can use to email me.
Fluffy Bunny | 02.23.05 - 9:20 am | #

Dawn's Mom,

Thanks for the civil reply. Frankly, I haven't really paid much attention to Ms. Schiavo's case until I found Dawn's website, which was referenced by the Galley Slaves blog.

I do think this issue is extremely important. My point, which I have expressed in many previous posts, is that it seems to me the real question is "What would Dawn want?"

If you believe that the courts got it wrong, fine; help to get them right. And if they did get Dawn's wishes wrong and her feeding tubes are removed and she dies, that is a tragedy. But if the courts got her wishes right, then who am I or you to prevent her wishes from being carried out?

If you don't think that anybody in her condition (whatever her condition is, I'm not arguing that point) should ever be allowed to have feeding tubes removed, well that is another position with which I completely disagree.
Fluffy Bunny | 02.23.05 - 9:31 am | #

I have come to the conclusion that the Bunny and the Human are just parroting talk points, probably from a site put up by Mikey Schiavo and his sychophants.
As far as Monica goes, nothing but a misdirection to get attention away from the question at hand. Why would anybody do such? Probably because cockroaches scatter when you turn on the light ( wish I could take credit for that line)
J Rob | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 9:37 am | #

I'm curious. With all the pro-life sentiment on this board, what is everyone's views on the death penalty? Or is that a topic for another day?
Phil | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 9:38 am | #

Phil, now that virtual competitions are available, I'm entirely in favor of the death penalty for these guys.
Matthew Mcguire | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 10:12 am | #

Dear Fluffy, Unfortunately, we may have reached a stalemate about apples and oranges. You are a relativist. While the relativist position seems loving and tolerant, it is unfortunately nonviable, because it cannot operate (ever) as truth. Truth is an absolute. Absolutism is the opposite of relativism. So relativists are reduced to silly anachronistic arguments about "your" truth and "my" truth, and there is no chance for meaningful civility or law. We can say that the majority rules, but we can't even agree on the concepts of "majority" or "rule".

Fluffy, I am an absolutist. I seek the Truth, in which I absolutely believe. I certainly am a weak and ignorant human being, and I do not know all that Truth would have me know, but I do know that Truth "is". Therefore, I seek to know--not what Dawn thinks, particularly-- but what God (the Way, the Truth, and the Life) thinks. "Choose life" rings a bell in my conscience, regardless of whether I know the Name of God. Obviously, if we choose "not-life", we will not be arguing on blogs any more, because there will be none, because we ourselves will be nonbeings. Even if I follow a "nonbeliever' such as Emmanuel Kant, who devised a way of looking at moral behavior without mentioning God, i.e., the Categorical Imperative, which suggests that we live in a way that we would will for the whole world to live-- even if I follow this argument, I still must choose life.

Fluffy, I choose life. Where there is life, there is hope. Terri is obviously not suffering. As a cognitive therapist, I can probably be safe in assuming that her "Theory of Mind", i.e., her self-analytical function, is now missing. So, whether or not Terri _would have_ wanted to die in this state is immaterial now. We do not condemn people to live according to all their musings and vows of their youth. If we did, you and I would now be miserable or dead.
Dawn\'s Mom | 02.23.05 - 10:26 am | #

A main concern is that there is no definite proof that Terri Schiavo would want to taken off feeding. If there were a written Living Will stating this, perhaps Mr. Schiavo would have an argument. I personally don't think feeding and hydrating are heroic measures of life support. Mr. Schiavo seems awfully intent on ending her life; this reminds me of the rabidly pro-abortion people who are not just for "choice," but seem positively proud of aborting pre-born babies for any reason at any time.

As for capital punishment, my only problem with it is that we are not always sure we have the right person. When there is no doubt, and I admit there often is reasonable doubt, then I believe it is society's obligation to punish that behavior (murder). Having said that, I would gladly trade capital punishment for abortion "rights" i.e. I'll give up the death penalty for murderers if they'll give abortion (a death penalty for innocents).
Andy | 02.23.05 - 11:31 am | #

At the suggestion of a wise reader (Mom), I edited Rachel's profanity--though it included a *--and insult. However, I have not banned her, because the * showed she at least knew that there were rules she should not break. Everyone, please don't push me on the "polite discourse" thing. I love reading most of the comments and don't like playing policeman. Thanks.
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 11:39 am | #

Andy, I am in complete agreement with you on everything you said about the death penalty, including the willingness to "trade."

Also, you get 100 points for the "zombeatle" e-mail address, referencing the two coolest bands of the Sixties (in order of coolness).
Dawn Eden | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 1:37 pm | #

I'm just urging consistency. Pro-life should mean pro-life without exceptions. That's the Pope's position which explains his opposition to capital punishment. The American right-wing movement that says it's pro-life but encourages capital punishment by including caveats is a hypocrisy.
Phil | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 1:56 pm | #

Phil,

The Catholic Church has always made a distinction between abortion and capital punishment. Taking the life of an innocent human being is, regardless of circumstance or motivation, always wrong. It is an intrinsically evil act.

With regard to capital punishment, we are not talking about innocent persons, the moral note depends on the circumstances and motivation of the act. People of good will are permitted to disagree about the application of capital punishment.
Suzanne | 02.23.05 - 2:17 pm | #

Dawn's Mom,

First of all, I had a typo, didn't mean to say "What would Dawn want?", I meant to say "What would Ms. Schiavo want?"

To the extent that I accept the fact that I am not omniscient, I am a relativist (although I am no fan of Emanuel Kant).

Moreover, I have never argued that I am operating as the truth. Why you resort to calling my respect for others people's beliefs "silly", I don't know.

But when it comes to absolutism, I don't know whose absolutism I should believe in. The evangelical community? The Catholic church? The Wahabis in Saudi Arabia?

I'm glad God made somebody down here on earth omniscient. (I've been trying not to be sarcastic but I can't help it.)
Fluffy Bunny | 02.23.05 - 3:02 pm | #

Phil,

"I'm curious. With all the pro-life sentiment on this board, what is everyone's views on the death penalty? Or is that a topic for another day?"

The major difference is that with Terri Schiavo and unborn children, we are talking about killing someone who is innocent in the eyes of our government.
The Death Penalty is for those who are proven guilty in a court of law.

Isn't it fair to say that the critical test of true consistency would involve this small fact also?
Can we really turn a blind eye to this detail?
thanks, Neil
Neil | 02.23.05 - 3:09 pm | #

Maybe we should change our title from Pro-Life to Pro-Justice.
What we really want is for the guilty to be punished properly and for the innocent to be protected.
That's an admirable goal in my opinion.
I'd vote for Pro-Justice Politicians!
-Neil
Neil | 02.23.05 - 3:11 pm | #

But Suzanne, I don't understand how one can say that only the innocent deserve life. How do we, as fallible human beings, make that judgment? I know we like to act as if we have all the answers and that we understand morality but we don't. And does anyone really believe that Jesus Christ would support the death penalty?
Phil | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 3:12 pm | #

We don't make the judgement by ourselves. Government makes the decision and yes government is fallible, but they've been given that role by God as per Romans 13.

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

And yes I believe Christ supports the death penalty. He supported His own Death Penalty.
-Neil
Neil | 02.23.05 - 3:22 pm | #

Neil,

If governments have been given the control, why are you so upset with the decision of the florida courts in Ms. Schiavo's case?

Do you think that the trial court erroneously found that Ms. Schiavo would have wanted the feeding tubes removed?

Or do you think that the trial court shouldn't even have the power to find that Ms. Schiavo would have wanted the feeding tubes removed?
Fluffy Bunny | 02.23.05 - 3:26 pm | #

I think the courts have made a mistake. I think that either they are deceived by the lies or their consciences are seared and they place quality of life and money above the basic sanctity of life.
They are probably caught up in the political statment being made about the so-called right to die.
Finally, I think their hearts are basically a slab of overcooked steak- Seared and scarred and insensitive to the value of basic human life.
-Neil
Neil | 02.23.05 - 3:30 pm | #

I see. When we agree with what the government does, they are acting within their role given by God. When we disagree with what the government does, their hearts are seared and scarred. Well I'm convinced.
Phil | Homepage | 02.23.05 - 3:37 pm | #

Exactly,
You hit it exactly on the head. That is very true. I understand your comment was meant to be sarcastic but it is still true. When we agree with the goverment, there is no need to protest.
When we disagree with the Government, that is when we become outraged, disagreeable, angry, and begin to protests it's decisions.
However, whether the Government acts justly or unjustly, it has been sovereignly ordained by God.
So yes, if Terri dies, God has still ordained this government as he has also allowed the governing bodies in Sudan and the atrocities there.
He's not sitting up there saying "Dang, they got by me again!" He knew what would happen before time began.

So OUR role in this is to work to change the present state of things - and to advocate Justice and Mercy. And by God's will may He use us as a tool in history to glorify Himself.
-Neil
Neil | 02.23.05 - 3:55 pm | #

Phil:

"I don't understand how one can say that only the innocent deserve life. How do we, as fallible human beings, make that judgment?"

Would you refrain from making that judgment if an intruder were in your home and about to kill your wife? Part of the justification for the death penalty is defense of society and the common good.

"I know we like to act as if we have all the answers and that we understand morality but we don't."

Individuals do not have all the answers on morality. They need to go to an infallible source. There's only one.

"And does anyone really believe that Jesus Christ would support the death penalty?"

His Father did. Read the Old Testament. If the death penalty were always and everywhere wrong and evil, God couldn't have prescribed it as punishment for certain sins.
Suzanne | 02.23.05 - 4:33 pm | #

If one believes that there are absolute truths in life, then one has a responsibility to search out those truths and attempt to live according to them.
There are a variety of ways than men (both male and female) have chosen to try to find truth. And find is the operative word - because truth if absolute is not a creation of mankind. It pre-exists us and will still be there when we are gone.
Religion, science, and philosophy are all attempts to find that truth.
What is often ignored is that all these systems require one to posit basic items - postulates and/or assumptions - upon which to build the rest of the framework. The basic postulates of religion have to do with the existance and nature of God. The basic postulates of science have to do with the infallibility of the scientific method. I don't know enough philosophy to state what its basic postulates are, but I am pretty sure that there are some.
Our modern culture worships science with a fervor that I personally find disturbing. Science is a very good way of determining truths about the physical world, but it is not and was never meant to be the sole authority in life.
alicia | Homepage | 02.24.05 - 5:18 am | #

Alicia,

Nice post.

However, I'm not sure that "modern culture worships science with a fervor". I think if you ask any capitalist, they will definitely acknowledge that science is awesome for business and society (i.e. Intel, Microsoft, Pfizer, Exxon, General Motors). A vast majority of business rely in science as the basis for their operations. You and I are relying on it right now to have this discussion.

Having said that, I think that if you ask any person who works in any scientific field, they will quickly acknowledge the limits of science, that there are so many unknowns that science has not yet, and may never be able to answer or describe.

In addition, I think it is interesting that in the scientific culture in which we live, people are flocking to find religious authorities to answer questions and guide them in difficult times.
Fluffy Bunny | 02.24.05 - 10:15 am | #