Will Misogyny Bring Down The Atheist Movement?

[Warren Stupidity]

The continuing debate over a murky sexual encounter at a 2008 convention for cheekily anti-establishment skeptics underscores a broader dilemma: How can a progressive, important intellectual community behave so poorly towards its female peers?
On June 19, 2008, Alison Smith, 26 and aflame with commitment to her cause, was at the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, working for the James Randi Educational Foundation as part of the staff for The Amaz!ng Meeting. “TAM,” as everyone calls it, was started by the foundation in 2003 and is a four-day annual convention of what’s loosely called the freethought movement, comprising atheists, agnostics, debunkers of pseudoscience, and others promoting rationalism over superstition, and reason over religion. What Comic-Con is to X-Men fans, TAM has become to freethought: an intellectual mixer, a party zone, and the place where the average fan can meet his or her heroes.

The featured speaker in 2008 was astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, now the host of Cosmos, the update of Carl Sagan’s classic miniseries. Christopher Hitchens spoke that year, and the illusionists Penn and Teller, heroes to the freethought movement, performed. Yet one of the biggest draws was Michael Shermer, a swaggering historian of science who, after an earlier career as an ultra-long-distance bicyclist, founded Skeptic magazine. He now contributes columns to Scientific American, speaks all over the world, and writes popular books like Why People Believe Weird Things, which are just what you should give to a friend who needs to be deprogrammed from a belief in fundamentalist Christianity, alien abduction, or bogus homeopathic remedies. He is a freethought celebrity, an exciting person for a young activist like Alison Smith to bump up against — which she did, at an after-party on the first night.

“I ran into Shermer in the hallway,” Smith said recently, speaking publicly for the first time about what happened that night. They began talking, and he invited her to a Scotch and cigar party at the Caesars Palace hotel. “He was talking about future articles we could write, and he mentioned this party and asked if I could come, and I said yes.” At the party, they began downing drinks. “At some point,” Smith said, “I realized he wasn’t drinking them; he was hiding them underneath the table and pretending to drink them. I was drunk. After that, it all gets kind of blurry. I started to walk back to my hotel room, and he followed me and caught up with me.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/markoppenheimer/will-misogyny-bring-down-the-atheist-movement#1agxa7z

I'm sure this will end up getting trashed as proof we are all shitheads of the worst sort over there, so as per AlbertCat's recent suggestion we might as well have a sensible discussion here.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. what a crappy article and what a crappy premise

The vast majority of those who have the same distaste for organized religion and make believe, 2-part-fairy tales also strongly believe in respecting everyone. It is in the organized religions where you see women attacked, mentally shackled, socially controlled, and looked upon as second class creatures.

The fact that we have a couple of assholes who are jerks does not mean anything about our "movement" nor does it say anything about how the vast majority view sexism, racism, gender bias, hatred of LGBT, or effective birth control.

This strikes me as an underhanded effort to discredit us while secretly pushing forward a religious based reality.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. So that is a fair criticism, but the author at least partially agrees.

His view is that there are a couple of dynamics in play:
1. starting in the late 70's through the early 90's, the "pre-internet age' this was almost exclusively a community of white males, and the culture that developed within the community was not particularly sensitive to issues of race and gender. That culture persists and is in conflict with the changing constituency.

2. within any (relatively) new movement, its founding leaders are considered indispensable, and that creates problems when they have issues, in particular it makes the community itself vulnerable to attacks on its "indispensable" leaders. For example Dawkins and his tendency to mis-tweet and get hammered and then have to backtrack.

Not all of the community is progressive. There are randroids and rightwing libertarians - Penn Gillette for example - who do not share liberal./progressive values of inclusion.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. good points. Thanks for pointing it out.

[GoneOffShore]

19. Ah, Penn Jillette, one of the stupidest smart guys out there.

Also insanely irritating.

[AlbertCat]

28. (Dawkins) his tendency to mis-tweet and get hammered and then have to backtrack.

This is a myth.

It's folks inability (real or disingenuously deliberate) to understand what he usually clearly states..... and explaining to folks that seem to not "get" it is not backtracking.



Of course when HE says that and points that out, we get "Dawkins thinks we're incapable of understanding anything!!!!!"

[trotsky]

2. I'm sure many believers hope so.

In fact, that appears to be why they push this issue so much. They can't address any of the arguments put forth by atheism, so they have to discredit its "leaders" or the "movement."

[JNelson6563]

3. As stupid as this all is, there is a bigger point being overlooked

Much of the atheist "movement" is made up of individuals who don't need to join or movement or be a part of a church-like community. Most of us don't join up with any sort of atheism based group. We just lead regular lives. What groups like this get up to will have exactly zero influence on those who see the light of reason and decide the shed the shackles of religion

But I suppose it gives bible-god's gweat, gweat warriors something to hope for!

Julie

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Indeed. And I don't participate in any of these organized activities.

And yet I end up defending Dawkins because he misspoke enough to get hammered, over and over again, and it annoys me that otherwise reasonable people who I share a perspective on theistic beliefs with can be publicly so wrong-headed about other issues I care about. The ones who are or were clueless aren't the problem, it is the reactionaries who have taken up the challenge to be more inclusive by seeing just how arrogantly repulsive and exclusionary they can be that annoy the heck out of me, even if I never attend one of their events.

[AtheistCrusader]

5. "Not my monkey, not my circus"

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 12:43 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't go to atheist conventions, lectures , events.

[Iggo]

6. No.

[mr blur]

7. There's an atheist 'movement'? Who knew?

Do they have badges? Hats? A special handshake?

OK, I know that you know that the Atheist Movement is a nonsense idea. The first religionista that bleats on about the "sexist" nature of atheism because some jerk disrespected a woman at a meeting, and yet carries on defending the most institutionalized misogynistic organisations on the planet on the grounds that a predatory paedophile just happened to be a priest or a Christian can fuck right off. And that includes the Faitheists and the Kumbaya Cheerleaders.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. they were lapel puns.

Oops. Pins.

Well, actually, both would work. With the Pin version having satan, or sporting the letters WWARTPD.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. There is something that has conventions.

What would you like to call it? There are atheists, new atheists, skeptics, etc. They meet up. There are organizations. You don't have to join to be an atheist, but I think you know that. I agree completely that the whining about meeting misogyny in the whatever the fuck it is community by people who staunchly defend the RCC is what used to get a "fuck off" response here before we became a community of post nannies looking for a victim to send on an unexpected vacation.

[mr blur]

12. Yeah, you're right, of course, there is a 'movement'

but I just get really pissed off at the way the religionistas talk about the "Atheist Movement" as if we were the Bolsheviks marching on the government and eager to lynch Christians from the nearest lamp post.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. I'm pretty sure the group baby eating events on youtube don't help.

[temporary311]

24. If we weren't meant to eat baby,

then baby wouldn't be so tasty.

[Arugula Latte]

11. Darn! I WAS an atheist women, but because there are a few creeps who are also atheists,

I've been forced to go back to believing in an invisible supernatural being who pulls all the strings.

Well, I guess I'll be spending my time in church from now on, so I won't be seeing you heathens anymore. Ta ta! Hope ya'll have fun burning in Hell for all eternity!

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. We can't let the religionists affect how we evaluate ourselves.

Just because some people, usually named after textiles, may or may not use articles such at this to slander atheists broadly does not mean this subject isn't worth talking about.

It is. And, frankly, I think it is better that we, ourselves, take the shitheels amongst us to task. Better the world hear it from us than those who stand against us.

[defacto7]

32. This is the point of points.

We must not let the religionists affect how we evaluate ourselves. That is their battle plan... any way to take our persona from us and make us into the perfect enemy of their making. It's the great straw-man if I ever saw one, and it's swallowed up by anyone looking for an argument to satisfy their ideology.

[trotsky]

35. "usually named after textiles"

[onager]

14. Shermer made a good point.

"I will freely respond to Alison or any other woman who communicates with me directly and privately who believes I have insulted or mistreated her. Let’s try honest person to person—and most of all timely—communication as a way of dealing with such issues.”

Yes, let's try that. Instead of rumor, innuendo, Trial By Internet and leaking carefully cherry-picked items to our favorite Useful Idiots in the media.

That's one thing that astounds me about this whole kerfuffle. Most of these people know each other. Why not send an email or pick up the phone?

And as food for thought, some comments from Sharon Madison posting on Michael Nugent's latest blog:

So when do we start collecting real data about women atheists’ perceptions of organized secular activism?

As a woman, I’ve grown rather tired of hearing that ‘women think this, that, or the other thing’. No one has asked for my opinion on why I am, or am not, involve in secular activism. No one has asked for my opinion on what issues matter to me. No one has asked for my opinion on what I feel organizations are doing right or wrong, or what they could be doing better. No one has asked for my opinion on the problem of sexism and sexual harassment in the secular community. No one has asked for my opinion about people I’m supposed to consider “sexist pigs”, or the people who are waging the war on “sexist pigs”.

Adam Lee says, “Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement”. Many? How many constitutes “many”? None of the atheist women I know personally have been asked if they agree that there is “a casual sexism endemic to the movement”. So, how many atheist women do I know? As I have a 35 year history of involvement in skeptic/secular activism, I would bet that my “none” is greater than Adam Lee’s “many”. Still, these nebulous terms tell us nothing.

Jerry Falwell claimed that he was speaking for the moral “majority” when, in fact, he was only speaking for a very vocal but small minority of people who identify as religious.

No one who claims to be speaking on behalf of women atheists can state with certainty that they are speaking on behalf of the majority of women atheists or, instead, just a very vocal but small minority of women atheists. Until I see some effort being made to canvas a large sample of women who identify as atheist/agnostic about their concerns, I’m going to dismiss all claims about why women are or are not involved in organized secular endeavors for the bullshit that they are.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. I disagree, almost entirely

Yes, Shermer has a legal right to a trial by jury if the alleged victim were to press charges. He also has the right to sue the snot out of her, PZ Meyers, and everyone else involved in perpetuating the story. He hasn't done this, and -- if I may get a little snarky here -- I suspect the reason is because is we apply science, we find that it statistically improbable that the alleged victim is lying.

The sanest position, if I may posit one, is one of cautious reservation. I have no proof he is actually guilty, but I also have no reason to suspect the alleged victim is lying. Even if both scenarios were equally probable -- and they are not -- you'd still have to consider the possibility Shermer is guilty, and it is clear form his plea that he really doesn't want you doing that.

As for this:

So when do we start collecting real data about women atheists’ perceptions of organized secular activism?

As a woman, I’ve grown rather tired of hearing that ‘women think this, that, or the other thing’. No one has asked for my opinion on why I am, or am not, involve in secular activism. No one has asked for my opinion on what issues matter to me. No one has asked for my opinion on what I feel organizations are doing right or wrong, or what they could be doing better. No one has asked for my opinion on the problem of sexism and sexual harassment in the secular community. No one has asked for my opinion about people I’m supposed to consider “sexist pigs”, or the people who are waging the war on “sexist pigs”.

Adam Lee says, “Many female atheists have explained that they don’t get more involved because of the casual sexism endemic to the movement”. Many? How many constitutes “many”? None of the atheist women I know personally have been asked if they agree that there is “a casual sexism endemic to the movement”. So, how many atheist women do I know? As I have a 35 year history of involvement in skeptic/secular activism, I would bet that my “none” is greater than Adam Lee’s “many”. Still, these nebulous terms tell us nothing.

Jerry Falwell claimed that he was speaking for the moral “majority” when, in fact, he was only speaking for a very vocal but small minority of people who identify as religious.

No one who claims to be speaking on behalf of women atheists can state with certainty that they are speaking on behalf of the majority of women atheists or, instead, just a very vocal but small minority of women atheists. Until I see some effort being made to canvas a large sample of women who identify as atheist/agnostic about their concerns, I’m going to dismiss all claims about why women are or are not involved in organized secular endeavors for the bullshit that they are.

I believe neither truth nor morality are necessarily determined by majority consensus. That some, or even many, women may be comfortable with casual sexism doesn't speak to whether or not casual sexism exists in the AM, much less to whether or not it is appropriate for our meetings or conferences. What matters is some people seem to think it does exist, and are uncomfortable with it. Maybe we should try listening to them instead of the dismissing them out of hand

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Part of the discussion with the author on the Center for Inquiry podcast

touched on why the evidence-based-reason community (how's that label?) has trouble with issues like this. Partly it is because we demand hard evidence before drawing conclusions. But there rarely is hard evidence of sexual harassment and misconduct. And people cannot operate in a society safely, particularly if they are women in this society, by only acting on hard evidence. Instead they have to navigate the perils and pitfalls of social interaction in an unsafe society by "gut instincts", "social reputations", etc.

Shermer has a terrible reputation and perhaps the only person disputing that is Shermer. Even his friends admit he has a problem.

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. That's pretty much spot-on.

This kind of goes hand-in-hand with another observation: that atheists are split between "hard" experimental sciences and "soft" correlational sciences.

It's insanely hypocritical; the people most qualified to speak about gender issues, criminality, and society are being told to sit down and shut the fuck up by people who are constantly imploring others to "defer to the experts" whenever possible.

[onager]

25. No, I'll dispute that...

...because I'm feeling especially contrary today.

Shermer has a terrible reputation and perhaps the only person disputing that is Shermer. Even his friends admit he has a problem.

A terrible reputation for what, exactly? Drinking and trying to hook up for casual sex at conventions? If that becomes illegal, Shermer will have plenty of company in the slammer. Including the women's wing of that slammer.

e.g., here's a woman writing about the "Bordello Party" held at a TAM a few years ago. All she did was question the propriety of dressing up like whores (literally) at a party celebrating women in skepticism.

For that, she was labeled anti-sex, anti-feminist, a femi-nazi (no, not the only the Right uses that slur) and assorted other choice epithets. All that, from people claiming to be feminists:

http://skeptopia.wordpress.com/2010/06/21/why-ill-never-return-to-jref-forum-or-the-amazng-meeting/

[onager]

23. I didn't get that at all from Madison.

She never says she is "comfortable with casual sexism." She's saying that she's never been asked about it. She seems to be angry about other people presuming to speak for her, and IMO she has every right to be angry about that.

Madison certainly isn't the only A/S woman with that opinion. But as she points out, we seldom hear from them. And when we do, their opinions don't make it into the mainstream internet media.

"Statistically improbable that the victim is lying?" I'll get even snarkier - we better let Jodi Arias out of prison. She claimed to be abused and the only other witness is a dead misogynist, so we should just take her word for it. Or "Always Believe The Victim," as some people would say.

I'd certainly agree on the "cautious reservation" part. I'm seeing many people use the word "evidence" when they have no such thing - just the usual Internet Telephone Game.

Speaking of that game, one of the accusations against Shermer turned out to be untrue and pretty funny. A woman claimed "he kept filling my wine glass, obviously trying to get me drunk and Have His Way With Me."

Unfortunately for the accuser, that one took place in public with several male and female witnesses. All agree that Shermer wasn't pouring anybody's wine - a server was pouring, and Shermer just told the server to make sure everyone's wine glass stayed full. So he was obviously guilty of being a good host. That heartless bastard!

I have to wonder how many more of the allegations against him started out that way.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. That doesn't make sense.

Do Log Cabin Republicans have a legitimate gripe if Dan Savage slams the Republican Party for its systemic homophobia? Frankly, I don't think they do, because the homophobia of conservative politicians exists, regardless of whether or not they perceive it.

Richard Dawkins seems to think we have no right to call taking sexual advantage of an inebriated woman "rape". Sam Harris seems to think the utter dearth of women in the upper echelons of the "movement" is due to men being "confrontational" and women being "nurturing", and Shermer has said, essentially, the same stupid thing. Never mind the over-the-top horseshit we hear from Penn Jillette, Emery Emery and their cadre of socially astute libertarian comedians who, for some reason, haven't learned that punching down the social ladder isn't really that funny.

In light of all this, I really don't care whether or not Madison thinks sexist attitudes exist within the A/S movement, because it is pretty goddamned clear that they do.

"Statistically improbable that the victim is lying?" I'll get even snarkier - we better let Jodi Arias out of prison. She claimed to be abused and the only other witness is a dead misogynist, so we should just take her word for it. Or "Always Believe The Victim," as some people would say.

Yes, statistically improbable. What studies have been conducted on the issue place the prevalence of false rape accusations somewhere in the neighborhood of 8%, at the most.

And this isn't a very good point for comparison.

First, it is worth mentioning Jodi Arias almost certainly killed someone. That is not a matter of debate. Whether or not her husband was a misogynist wouldn't change the fact she broke the law; it would merely spare her the possibility of the death penalty.

But let's assume she made the whole thing up. So what? What does one high-profile example prove? Using the same logic, one could just as easily say there is no racism inherent to the American justice system because OJ Simpson was found innocent.

I'd certainly agree on the "cautious reservation" part. I'm seeing many people use the word "evidence" when they have no such thing - just the usual Internet Telephone Game.

Speaking of that game, one of the accusations against Shermer turned out to be untrue and pretty funny. A woman claimed "he kept filling my wine glass, obviously trying to get me drunk and Have His Way With Me."

Unfortunately for the accuser, that one took place in public with several male and female witnesses. All agree that Shermer wasn't pouring anybody's wine - a server was pouring, and Shermer just told the server to make sure everyone's wine glass stayed full. So he was obviously guilty of being a good host. That heartless bastard!

I have to wonder how many more of the allegations against him started out that way.

You're citing one story that may not be accurate as an excuse to disregard a multitude of stories that aren't as easily dismissed. This isn't particularly cautious or reserved, if I may be honest.

[AlbertCat]

30. Dawkins seems to think we have no right to call taking sexual advantage of an inebriated woman "rape

No he doesn't.


That is not what he said.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. "If you want to drive, don't get drunk...

"...If you want to be in a position to testify & jail a man, don't get drunk."

"Officer, it's not my fault I was drunk driving. You see, someone got me drunk."

This isn't victim blaming?

I'm all ears.

[AlbertCat]

39. I'm all ears.

Seems like good advice.

I don't see that he's blaming anyone for being a rape victim.


He sounds more like he realizes women do get blamed as a victim, so one shouldn't give the victim blamers ammunition. Drunk people don't remember things accurately, and lawyers know this.

He also doesn't seem to state he thinks this is OK.

[Act_of_Reparation]

41. It necessarily implies responsibility.

He's telling women that it is their responsibility to abstain from alcohol in the event they are sexually assaulted, and warning them that should they fail to vigilantly adhere to this absurd maxim that they have no right to complain when no one takes their allegations seriously.

You could just as easily -- and (ir)rationally -- argue that all women should carry guns, or learn Aikido, or be accompanied by a bodyguard at all times when going out because doing any of these things might diminish the chances of rape, or at the very least show that they took some precaution beforehand. The fact of the matter is rapists will often target intoxicated victims precisely because of this attitude -- because they know people will assume that if a girl gets drunk to the point of blacking out, that she's practically asking someone to take advantage of her.

Case in point: Steubenville.

Dawkins isn't giving good advice, he's reinforcing the fucking rapists' position. He's transferring responsibility, at least in part, from the criminal to the fucking victim, and creating some bullshit metric by which we determine just how much sympathy we should show rape victims based entirely upon how prepared they were for the eventuality.

Like I said before: Fundamental Attribution Error. It's really easy to criticize people's decisions from 30,000 feet, well after the fact... and even easier, it would seem, to attribute one's misfortunes to internal, dispositional causes than rather looking at the big picture.

But I'm guessing they don't go over that shit in evolutionary biology classes.

[onager]

36. "...utter dearth of women in the upper echelons of the "movement..."

Atheist Women Leaders Surprisingly Not Hard to Find - Secular Woman - July 29, 2013
http://www.secularwoman.org/atheist_women_not_hard_to_find

Where Are All the Women Atheists? 6 Places You Can Find Them - Alternet - July 31, 2013
http://www.alternet.org/belief/where-are-all-women-atheists-6-places-you-can-find-them

A large list of awesome female atheists - January 3, 2010
http://www.blaghag.com/2010/01/large-list-of-awesome-female-atheists.html

[AlbertCat]

29. Maybe we should try listening to them instead of the dismissing them out of hand

We have listened to them, have we not?

Could it be that they sound a little over the top and so we dismiss them?

"we find that it statistically improbable that the alleged victim is lying. " On what evidence? Does Shermer have a history of this behavior? (apparently yes) And if "yes" then why are we surprised? Are we supposed to be outraged that she just found out?


Is Shermer's crime he was attracted to a female who claims he was hiding drinks under the table. (Why didn't she say something when she noticed "Are you hiding drinks?&quot She admits she was drunk. So naturally her memory of events is perfect! Right?

Did she go public with it before talking to Shermer about how insulted she was? Or someone with clout in this "atheist movement"?

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. "We have listened to them, have we not?"

No, it doesn't appear that you have.

Because:

"we find that it statistically improbable that the alleged victim is lying. " On what evidence? Does Shermer have a history of this behavior? (apparently yes) And if "yes" then why are we surprised? Are we supposed to be outraged that she just found out?

Is Shermer's crime he was attracted to a female who claims he was hiding drinks under the table. (Why didn't she say something when she noticed "Are you hiding drinks?&quot She admits she was drunk. So naturally her memory of events is perfect! Right?

Did she go public with it before talking to Shermer about how insulted she was? Or someone with clout in this "atheist movement"?

I am not trying to be an asshole here (I think we all get our fill of confrontation in that other forum), but you really disappoint me with this. Smith should have known better? Smith shouldn't have gotten drunk? Smith should have talked to Shermer first? This is the Fundamental Attribution Error in a nutshell... blaming the victim.

I sincerely hope you revisit your opinions on these matters.

[AlbertCat]

40. blaming the victim.

Oh.... was raped? assaulted? touched even? Talked dirty to?


Followed to her room is all I know about. Didn't she close the door in his face and that ended it? Did he force entry? Is there more? (really I'm asking)

What is she the victim of?


She's a victim of being ogled and followed by a jerk. That's not her fault. It's also not a major crime (and she coulda easily asked him to explain why he was being such a jerk later. She seems perfectly capable of taking care of the situation.)

But does that mean the entire atheist "movement" is misogynist mayhem? Pointing out that it does not mean that is not approving of such behavior.


And pointing out that drunk people don't remember things clearly is not "blaming the victim". It's a factor, that's all.

[Act_of_Reparation]

42. Talked dirty to?

In the words of Michael Shermer:

If Alison was unhappy with our sexual encounter, let alone if she believed she had been raped, why would she ask a rapist to be on her sex panel, and throw in a smiley face for fun? Why didn't she tell me back in 2008, or years later, or even now, how she really felt? I don't know. But I do know this: at the time, Alison definitely wanted to have sex with me, she was not intoxicated when we did have sex, and it was consensual the entire time, and by her actions before, during, and after she seemed to have no reservations or misgivings. Had Alison changed her mind and decided she wanted to stop, I would have stopped. And I would never have sex with a woman so intoxicated she could not consent.

Bearing in mind, of course, that this differs significantly from his initial recollection, what remains clear is that there is no debate over what happened between Shermer and Smith. This isn't about being followed, being groped, or being party to "dirty talk"; Shermer had sex with Smith. He doesn't deny it (now).

[Lordquinton]

15. Given that that major world religions are founded on institutionalized misogyny

I think they are worried that the "AM" is honing in on their racket. They'll accuse someone of being a pedo next.

(Jury: by Them, I mean article writers, not anyone in specific)

[Warpy]

16. Misogyny is what keeps women atheists invisible

While it's mostly the misogyny of the bible floggers, it's also the misogyny of fellow unbelievers who want the comfort of knowing the women in their lives are controlled and silent and will continue to be their unpaid servants because Jebus told them to.

[AlbertCat]

31. fellow unbelievers .... because Jebus told them to.

Uh...... what?

[yortsed snacilbuper]

26. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

Meaning

Don't discard something valuable along with something undesirable.

[onager]

37. My last, no-kidding comment on all this...

Here's a thread from the JREF forums where Alison Smith herself posts (under the nick RemieV).

The person who found her after the Shermer encounter also posts. That was Jeff Wagg, General Manager of JREF and also Smith's partner at the time, apparently. Draw your own conclusions:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=279753

Now I'm going back to another current skeptical cause - investigating the Jasmine Tridevil controversy.

[RussBLib]

38. hell, no. does one corrupt TV preacher discredit all of Christianity?

of course, Christianity is already discredited, but that doesn't stop that steamroller from rolling along.