tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post2994790250920532648..comments2024-03-28T22:29:52.666+13:00Comments on Anglican Down Under: Lacks moral framework. Could collapse.Peter Carrellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-38483971271505137822011-09-25T10:57:20.718+13:002011-09-25T10:57:20.718+13:00Thank you, Peter.Thank you, Peter.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-70120744670827762702011-09-25T08:03:10.947+13:002011-09-25T08:03:10.947+13:00Hi Tobias,
I find this paragraph of yours helpful:...Hi Tobias,<br />I find this paragraph of yours helpful:<br /><br />"Please understand that my goal is not so much to "convince conservatives" of the rightness of same-sex marriage, but to perhaps persuade open-minded conservatives that this issue is more ambiguous, and capable of "being lived with" -- much as many of them have come to live with remarriage after divorce -- and that it need not be a communion-breaking issue. I do not think my arguments will convince those who already think it a communion-breaking issue; but I hope it may be enough to convince that, as I say in the intro, this is a reasonable development in the tradition rather than a radical departure from it (or at least no more radical than a number of other changes in the tradition.)"<br /><br />In the particular context of the conversation on this thread, it is not clear to me that Fr Ron Smith is as open to the ambiguities of the situation (i.e. that conservatives might have a respectable and reasonable case themselves) as you hope conservatives might be open to the ambiguities of the situation.<br /><br />In respect of your paragraph cited above I have tried to express on this blog that I hope Anglicans can hold together rather than divide. A way forward could be for conservatives to recognise what might be reasonable developments in the tradition (even if disagreeable developments). But I suggest conservatives in both my church and in your church (and in the churches formed by those who have left) are looking for signs that we are not being cast as the unreasonable resisters. (In sum) a Scriptural case for marriage I suggest (and notwithstanding where my beginning reading of your book is going) does place weight on "the locus of morality being in gender" (though with equal rather than lesser weighting on the "permanence and fidelity of the relationship." I omit "quality" in a brief comment because that word requires a lot more discussion re Scripture and marriage than permanence and fidelity.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-90361076346345717702011-09-25T01:52:33.301+12:002011-09-25T01:52:33.301+12:00Thank you, Peter. I take your point that this is a...Thank you, Peter. I take your point that this is a different conversation, but wanted to note that you are not presenting an accurate summary of my views here. I do think at the other blog, so far, you are presenting at least the bare bones of my argument. <br /><br />I cannot "make windows into men's minds" so I do not know how effective or not my arguments have been with "conservatives." I can say that most of the official "conservative" response -- in the form of Ephraim Radner's review -- has not actually engaged the argument very well, and that even a few conservatives have agreed that his response is well below par as to substance.<br /><br />I weigh that against the overwhelmingly positive response I've received from the broader church community, including what I consider the peer reviews in the Anglican Theology Review and the Sewanee Journal of Theology (not yet published -- but the author of the review shared an advance copy; and the personal feedback I've had from some whose opinion I value.<br /><br />Please understand that my goal is not so much to "convince conservatives" of the rightness of same-sex marriage, but to perhaps persuade open-minded conservatives that this issue is more ambiguous, and capable of "being lived with" -- much as many of them have come to live with remarriage after divorce -- and that it need not be a communion-breaking issue. I do not think my arguments will convince those who already think it a communion-breaking issue; but I hope it may be enough to convince that, as I say in the intro, this is a reasonable development in the tradition rather than a radical departure from it (or at least no more radical than a number of other changes in the tradition.)<br /><br />On the actual point of this post -- I think the "conservative" view does harm to the church in the eyes of many by insisting on the locus of morality being in gender rather than the quality, permanence, and fidelity of the relationship. This is an issue in moral theology, that -- agreeing with Mr. Jacobs above -- morality is not found in personal satisfaction, but in the gift of the self for the good of the other -- and the primary theme of my work. As long as conservatives see same-sexuality as "hedonism" or the violation of an ancient taboo or of some principle of "nature" -- rather than as as much capable of self-gift and other-honor, we are indeed doomed to a kind of collapse.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10138355378134282912011-09-24T22:54:33.500+12:002011-09-24T22:54:33.500+12:00Hi Tobias
I don't have your book at home with ...Hi Tobias<br />I don't have your book at home with me, so may add a comment later when at my office. But I am taking your argument seriously (if slowly) over at my Hermeneutics and Human Dignity blog.<br />Here I am responding to Ron Smith's own assertions about the book; and making apunt about the books likely reception by conservatives. I could be wrong on that: have conservatives been persuaded by your arguments?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-64893221272384392902011-09-24T10:10:31.956+12:002011-09-24T10:10:31.956+12:00Peter, I do not have high hopes for my book doing ...Peter, I do not have high hopes for my book doing you much good in terms of persuasion if you are already so far from understanding it. <br /><br />In Chapter Two (not One) I state a thesis that "procreation is neither essential to marriage, nor the principle good of human sexuality." If you understand this as "fertility has nothing to do with sexuality" you have seriously misunderstood what I am saying. In fact, on page 7 I say rather clearly, "No one would claim that sex has nothing to do with procreation."<br /><br />If you are to understand me -- that is, remaining open to cogent arguments -- you would do better first of all to assume my arguments are cogent, or at least more than "clever." Then if you find an actual problem with my logic or assertions, or statements as to fact, lay out a case. Your "not being persuaded" is altogether too subjective, and does not, in itself, form an argument, but rather a statement about your own state of mind and belief. Name-calling "Sophistry... clever, etc." do not actually address the issue.Tobias Stanislas Haller BSGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08047429477181560685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-42481643497383924632011-09-23T12:35:20.114+12:002011-09-23T12:35:20.114+12:00Really, Peter! What about the biblical talk about ...Really, Peter! What about the biblical talk about a fertile land - such as the Israelites were to enter into at Canaan? What, precisely, did that have to do about sexuality?Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-30310663914472462782011-09-23T06:28:45.306+12:002011-09-23T06:28:45.306+12:00Hi Ron,
Yes, I have started reading the book. The ...Hi Ron,<br />Yes, I have started reading the book. The argument so far is neither persuasive nor cogent.<br /><br />Just before you think "Golly, will nothing persuade this man" I would like to make two points:<br /><br />(1) I am actually open to the persuasive and cogent argument. But Haller's argument (so far in my reading) is not that argument.<br /><br /><br />(2) I am not particularly interested in myself. I am but one individual. I am interested in arguments that will persuade all Christians. Again, I would be surprised if Haller's book contains those arguments because (so far) his arguments involve a sophistry that that is too clever: a statement, for example, that fertility has nothing to do with sexuality (as made in chapter one) is very clever. But does it work: most people think fertility does have something to do with sexuality. Are they going to give up that belief on the basis of Haller's clever logic?Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10879404149840584052011-09-22T22:19:51.645+12:002011-09-22T22:19:51.645+12:00Have you yet bothered to read Bosco's recommen...Have you yet bothered to read Bosco's recommended book by Tobias Haller: 'Reasonable and Holy'? If you were willing to read it, it may give you some idea of what is a perfectly cogent argument for the need to at least consider the arguments for the blessing of Gay relationships.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-72792435121689592052011-09-22T21:55:45.545+12:002011-09-22T21:55:45.545+12:00Hi Ron,
I am not arguing here against the rights ...Hi Ron,<br /><br />I am not arguing here against the rights homosexuals have under the laws of our land.<br /><br />I do not understand that any of us have a right to have God's blessing; nor do I understand that we can redefine marriage away from it being about a man and a woman.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-86526906137218117432011-09-22T19:11:02.005+12:002011-09-22T19:11:02.005+12:00To let you off the hook here, Peter; I will tell y...To let you off the hook here, Peter; I will tell you here and now that I am not expecting you to have any new ideas about the viability of the arguments for homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals for committted, life-long relationships with one another - or that God might actually approve of such relationships (even though I have a heart-felt under-standing that these things are most likely true).<br /><br />I have no expectation that your view will be changed - no matter how convincing the arguments might be to other people. I entertain no further hope that you will change.<br /><br />Agape, Father RonFather Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-78787850131984745512011-09-22T17:00:19.661+12:002011-09-22T17:00:19.661+12:00Umm, you have got me here, Howard!
1. The origina...Umm, you have got me here, Howard!<br /><br />1. The original post was not about homosexuality. The comments thread has become so. I do not have time (normally) to engage at the fullest length with all aspects of the arguments brought forward here on a blog which is primarily about being Anglican and not about homosexuality. (If and when I restart regular posting on my Hermeneutics and Human Dignity blog I think it reasonable that I offer full arguments etc.<br /><br />2. You seem to have expectations from me that you do not have of others here. I am still looking for things such as an explanation for how one can be 'catholic' and so freely change the catholic teaching of Christianity.<br /><br />3. I had not realised that I had committed myself to progressing towards an outcome you are satisfied with?<br /><br />4. Who measures "sufficient clarity and consistency"? <br /><br />For what it is worth, let me try to be clear and consistent: the Bible teaches us that marriage is between a man and a woman; it does not teach that it can be between two men or two women; the fact that sometimes several women were married to one man with no overt disapprobation from God does not constitute an argument for thinking that two men or two women can be married; nor does the church's (or churches') response to divorce, however disobedient to the teaching of Christ constitute an argument that marriage can be between two men or between two women.<br /><br />If, to pick up another point here, the Bible does not encourage us to bless the marriage of a man and a woman then it does not encourage us to bless the relationship of any couple.<br /><br />Where I am more than willing to admit to progress is that in understanding the Bible in the above manner and believing that understanding to be clear and consistent both with Scripture and with tradition I acknowledge that others - many others - in our church do not share that understanding and do not accept that the Bible is clear. Quite how we work out what these differences mean for the way we live out our ministries, missions, and relationships is beyond me.<br /><br />I take some comfort from the fact that others may also be unclear about what these differences mean etc because no one in our church appears to be moving very fast towards a solution!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-10994747243123139132011-09-22T16:07:41.845+12:002011-09-22T16:07:41.845+12:00Having been out of touch with your blog for some d...Having been out of touch with your blog for some days, I find it remarkable to come across this thread, in which David, Bosco and Ron make essentially the same points as they and others were making at least a year ago. Their stamina is amazing!<br /><br />You will have noticed my recent silence after long engagement with you on the same subject. You may ascribe half of my withdrawal from the fray to pressing duties. The other half, sadly, is a growing conviction that you are not open to persuasion, even in small details. One pattern I found particularly discouraging is that you would appear to concede a point in the course of one thread only to forget about it completely later on. <br /><br />Believing you to be of generous heart, I am alert for fixed ideas that might account for your lack of movement. So here is one I found above:- "...the only way Christianity can embrace homosexuality is via a change to its understanding of marriage." <br />Why not say rather that this is one possible way, or one part of a more complex process? The dialogue could then proceed along at least two parallel tracks, with parallel modifications of our understanding of marriage and an exploration of dimensions of blessedness in same-sex relationships, to name just two dimensions of the discussion found in this thread. My problem is not that you will not discuss both these things in a positive frame - you have so above - but that you will not do so in a way that indicates any progression in your thinking. Please tell me I am wrong by indicating subtle changes in your position over the last year or two!<br /><br />My central point is this:- when you invite advocates for change to argue our case with you, the onus is on you to provide sufficient clarity and consistency in your own arguments (as opposed to your position) to encourage a worthwhile engagement, assuming goodwill on all sides. <br /><br />Arohanui,<br />HowardHoward Pilgrimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822571103485207143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-83222341595367351642011-09-21T21:32:47.745+12:002011-09-21T21:32:47.745+12:00Bosco, thanks for your clarity on the issue of hom...Bosco, thanks for your clarity on the issue of homosexual versus heterosexual praxis. I think what Gays are actually asking for is the right to love the person of their choice, and for that to be considered worthy of God's blessing by the Church. What people do in bed is subject to their own conscience; and adultery is adultery - whether committed by heterosexual or homosexual persons.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-49891405222366401162011-09-21T09:59:35.903+12:002011-09-21T09:59:35.903+12:00Thanks, Peter,
Yes, I too do not want to engage i...Thanks, Peter,<br /><br />Yes, I too do not want to engage in a long argument. Others have devoted far more brainpower than I to this – this includes Accepting Evangelicals http://www.religiousintelligence.org/churchnewspaper/eos/towards-a-theology-of-gay-marriage/ and Tobias Haller, in his book Reasonable and Holy: Engaging Same-sexuality.<br /><br />I think the Bishop of Auckland, whose letter you point to today, hits the nail on the head: “I do not believe that we are going to find a consensus over the question of the ordination of those in committed same-sex relationships. A challenge for all of us then, is how we make room for one another within the Church, given our differences over this issue.”<br /><br />You refer to blessing adultery and sequential polygamy as “a response which is in keeping with the spirit of the gospel but not with the letter of what Jesus and Paul taught. This response has been a pragmatic recognition of tragedy within human society”. In this case the letter is clear. I’m not sure why this same “spirit” cannot apply to a situation where the letter is less clear. <br /><br />Why is homosexuality the particular line in the sand? Is it because the “blessing of adultery” affects about half of marriages formalised currently, and ordaining women a similar proportion of those who claim to hold a more literal relationship with the scriptures, and homosexuality is such a minority phenomenon that it is much more about “them” than about “us”?<br /><br />When more heterosexuals, declaring that homosexuals cannot satisfy their sexual desires in the context of a committed relationship, themselves abstain from sexual relationships for the rest of their lives because they are divorced, there may be a shift in the emotional undergirding that influences if not drives the debate.<br /><br />Blessings<br /><br />Boscoliturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-45986491186248215762011-09-21T07:14:13.980+12:002011-09-21T07:14:13.980+12:00Hi Bosco,
I find that what you write above is very...Hi Bosco,<br />I find that what you write above is very clear indeed, thank you.<br /><br />I think the Bible is clear on sex within marriage only, marriage being between one man and one woman, and marriage for life.<br /><br />As far as I can tell the Bible is clear (very clear?) in saying nothing about blessing any relationship.<br /><br /><br />Using the word 'clearly' I think we can also say that clearly many churches in recent years have found a way to respond to the increase of divorce in society, a response which is in keeping with the spirit of the gospel but not with the letter of what Jesus and Paul taught.<br /><br />This response has been a pragmatic recognition of tragedy within human society.<br /><br />What is not clear to me is how this particular move creates a theological foundation for talk about homosexuality as part of the normativity of human sociality, nor for celebrating marriage between two people of the same gender as intrinsic to the goodness of marriage as set down in the creation story.<br /><br />(I mention these things not to engage in a long argument here with you - you are welcome to respond, of course, if you chose to - but to attempt to sketch out a response to your comment as a sign of respect for the importance of the hermeneutical questions you raise).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-56377796261768431412011-09-20T22:28:56.075+12:002011-09-20T22:28:56.075+12:00I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer about the point of...I’m sorry that I wasn’t clearer about the point of my questions, Peter. Is there a clear, consistent position in the Bible on marriage? If the Bible, as the inspired Word of God, is clear from start to finish that marriage is between one man and one woman for life, and that there is a specific rite that blesses such a union, and that sex may only be had after that rite – then I think there is a very strong case that blessing committed same-sex unions is outside the borders of our revealed faith. What my questions, and other commenters here are highlighting, is that, not only is there no such clarity in the scriptures, but those who advocate against blessing committed same-sex unions do not hold to positions that the scriptures certainly are far clearer about. Does this help clarify why answering the questions I posed leads to greater clarity about a consistency in hermeneutics? What is more generally revealed in these type of discussions is that people appear to approach the Bible with certain prejudices and find support for the position they came with – be it about divorce, contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, or whatever. Few appear to be changing their position after an encounter with a hermeneutical argument. I wish you all the best in your continued efforts to do so. Blessings.liturgyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11822769747947139669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81991733788833373252011-09-20T22:22:32.491+12:002011-09-20T22:22:32.491+12:00Hi Ron,
A little inference can be a dangerous thi...Hi Ron, <br />A little inference can be a dangerous thing, as certain comedians in NZ are finidng out this week when they inferred that wearing a pilot's uniform would get them past airport security!<br /><br />I accept your withdrawal: thank you.<br /><br />As for being counted among the Pharisees for believing what most Christians have believed most of the time: I can handle that. Hard to understand how all Catholics are Pharisees but may be I am making too many inferences!Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-69415707634229851192011-09-20T22:15:10.400+12:002011-09-20T22:15:10.400+12:00Peter, I withdraw my comment about your 'despi...Peter, I withdraw my comment about your 'despising' Gays. I have no clear evidence - only inference.<br /><br />Talk of what 'most of the Christians most of the time have believed' as being your own position; sounds very much like the argument that could have been used by the Pharisees against Jesus' teaching of freedom from the consequences of 'LAW'. <br /><br />Jesus subverted the long-term understanding of his fellow Jews, by offering forgiveness for the sort of sins for which the sinners would have been stoned by the Pharisees. (e.g. the Woman caught in the act of adultery - Interestingly, in the patriarchal society that then existed, the man concerned was not at risk of being stoned!). <br /><br />Jesus' great offence, in the eyes of the Scribes and Pharisees, was that he seemed to think that God did not require them to mete out punishment for sins.Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-34144425312926635212011-09-20T18:41:57.510+12:002011-09-20T18:41:57.510+12:00Hi Ron
You did not label me 'homophobic', ...Hi Ron<br />You did not label me 'homophobic', you said I 'despised' people. And you offered no apology for that scurrilous and unfounded charge. How about some of the "love" you preach being applied in inter-personal relationships?!<br /><br />I am not representing the whole of Christianity; but I am trying to articulate what Christians believe. Is there some contradiction between what I write about sexuality and what most Christians most of the time have believed?<br /><br />I am not dismissing that fact that people fall in love within the same gender. Obviously they do. What I am asking for is the theological basis on which to justify the church blessing such relationships. We do not bless relationships just because love is involved (e.g. people having affairs outside of marriage). We bless relationships because we are convinced that Scripture, tradition and reason offer coherent support for doing so.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-81607442629588903172011-09-20T18:36:46.284+12:002011-09-20T18:36:46.284+12:00Hi David,
That is a very interesting argument you ...Hi David,<br />That is a very interesting argument you have put forward re blessings. I would be interested to see if another commenter takes up the challenge of supporting it or questioning it.<br /><br />Where I think it leaves open a question is whether the church has complete freedom of the keys or some constraint (in this case lack conviction that God would wish the church to turn the key in that way).Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-79728372653174634102011-09-20T13:17:23.706+12:002011-09-20T13:17:23.706+12:00Peter, just because you, personally are not conien...Peter, just because you, personally are not conienced about something - e.g. the intrinsic nature of a sexual continuum - between absolute male and absolute female - don't label the whole of Christianity as being represented by yourself.<br /><br />I'm sorry I have offended you by labelling you as homophobic, but I understand that name to cover anyone who fears homosexuality. And if you do not actually fear homosexuality - as some sort of perversion fit for hell, then why are you so dismissive of the prospect of two same-sex persons (unable to sexually relate to their gender opposite) falling in love and committing their lives in fidelity to one another for ever?<br /><br />In fact, if God is present in every act of loving, why would God not be present in the love between two persons of the same gender? (I'm talking about love here, not lust).Father Ron Smithhttp://kiwianglo.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-74923706167578181802011-09-20T13:00:23.202+12:002011-09-20T13:00:23.202+12:00There is nothing from scripture regarding the bles...There is nothing from scripture regarding the blessing of unions, it is purely tradition. The earliest churches have no tradition of blessing unions, they basically were sneaked in through the back door. As the church of today is the successor church of the church of yesterday, I feel that we still hold the keys for binding and freeing originally bestowed upon Peter. So if a church of today wishes to exercise that key and offer blessing to same sex unions, as the church of yesterday did for opposite sex unions, it is free to do so.Brother Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333089314994730330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-21290314887567017582011-09-20T12:53:08.314+12:002011-09-20T12:53:08.314+12:00Hi David,
Let me not be opaque: the patriarchs wer...Hi David,<br />Let me not be opaque: the patriarchs were polygamists; so were kings of Israel. There is no evidence, whatsoever, that the New Testament supports polygamy. Thus for Christians no precedence for polygamy can be held to exist by looking directly to the Old Testament.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-77266919311462253232011-09-20T12:50:39.708+12:002011-09-20T12:50:39.708+12:00Hi Bosco,
I would not say that we can be totally a...Hi Bosco,<br />I would not say that we can be totally assured that committed same-sex couples cannot be blessed. But I would say that I am unconvinced that committed same-sex couples can be blessed. I am open to being convinced, but would like to see positive evidence and supportive reasoning drawn from Scripture and tradition rather than a series of questions and doubts and speculative possibilities being drawn together as though somehow that constitutes a positive case.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3915617830446943975.post-25211764937872492622011-09-20T12:47:04.166+12:002011-09-20T12:47:04.166+12:00Hi Ron,
Could you please supply references to sup...Hi Ron,<br /><br />Could you please supply references to support your contention that I "despise" people or have expressed "horror and dismay at what people do in bed".<br /><br />I would hope that the church in which you and I minister is open to theological exploration of weighty matters such as changes to our understanding of marriage, including exploration of the import of such changes for the way in which we would handle other matters of ethics and morality which could come our way. I have asked you questions designed to elicit from you some wisdom about theological method. So far you have commented here with offering any response to those questions. <br /><br />I remain open to you commenting here but I will likely reject comments from you which impugn my character without supporting evidence for such allegations.Peter Carrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09535218286799156659noreply@blogger.com