By: Lynda Bustilloz Re: Heresy Trial - Prosecution View [ Episcopal News Service #1396 RIG

By: Lynda Bustilloz
Re: Heresy Trial -- Prosecution View [


Episcopal News Service #1396

RIGHTER TRIAL OPENS WITH STATEMENTS
UPHOLDING TRADITIONAL BELIEFS ON MARRIAGE

BY MIKE BARWELL
AND SARA BARTENSTEIN

       (ENS) WILMINGTON, Delaware--The trial of retired Bishop
Walter Righter opened this morning with strong statements that the
church must uphold the traditional teachings about human sexuality,
marriage, and draw a line in the sand to prevent "sowing the seeds of
anarchy" in the Episcopal Church.

       "Though the church is not infallible, there is at any given 
time
such a thing as a mind of the church on matters of faith and life," 
argued
Hugo Blankingship, retired chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia who
presented the case for traditional doctrine before nine bishops 
serving as
judges. "Those who disagree are free to argue for change. What they 
are
not free to do is to go against that mind of the church in their own
practice."

       The trial of Bishop Righter is the result of a presentment--or
indictment--brought by 10 conservative bishops of the Episcopal 
Church
who claim Righter violated the Episcopal Church's doctrine, teaching,
and practices by knowingly ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man as
a deacon in 1990. Righter's ordination of the Rev. Barry Stopfel of
Maplewood, N.J., occurred 12 days after the House of Bishops had
reprimanded Bishop John Spong of Newark for ordaining Robert
Williams, another homosexual man, in 1989. Righter's decision, the
bishops claim, was an "in your face" action in direct defiance of 
church
doctrine and resolutions of General Convention upholding traditional
church teaching about marriage, sexual expression, and what 
constitutes
"a wholesome example to the flock of Christ," in the words of the
ordination service.


ARGUING THAT THE DOCTRINE IS CLEAR

       "The position of the presenters is this," Blankingship said. 
"The
church's position is understood and clear: they [bishops] are able to
disagree and there can be honest disagreement, but until that is 
changed
by the church--not by individual dioceses or by individual 
bishops--until
it is changed by the church, it remains.

       "If we lose our handle on that we fall apart completely,"
Blankingship warned, "That is why the presenters--as painful as 
this is--
have brought this case where it is. If we don't hold to this, the
perception is we are going to lose what we have."

       The court is seated in Wilmington to decide what does and does
not constitute the doctrine of the church, particularly as it is 
binding on
what a bishop may or may not teach.

       Blankingship opened his argument by reminding the court that 
the
Episcopal Church, through the resolutions of the House of Bishops and
the 1979 General Convention, have consistently upheld "the 
traditional
teaching of the Church on marriage, marital fidelity, and sexual 
chastity
as the standard of sexual morality. Candidates for ordination are 
expected
to conform to this standard. Therefore, we believe it is not 
appropriate
for this Church to ordain a practising homosexual, or any person 
who is
engaged in a heterosexual relations outside of marriage." Any action
which condones or approves of sexual relations outside of marriage is
wrong, the presenters argue. Therefore, ordaining a man who is in a
homosexual relationship is a violation of church doctrine. Stopfel 
and his
partner of 10 years, Will Leckie, live together in the rectory of St.
George's Episcopal Church in Maplewood, N.J.


DIALOGUE WITH THE JUDGES

       Throughout Blankingship's presentation, the nine judges
frequently interrupted him with questions and requests for 
clarification,
specifically asking if the church has different levels of doctrine 
and
teaching, and if in the past the church had changed its doctrines. 

       Bishop Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles quizzed Blankingship if
the presenters believed the church had previously changed its 
doctrine of
marriage by adjusting its understanding of divorce and remarriage. 
"Are
you saying it is OK to change the church's teaching on divorce 
because it
had done so deliberately and corporately?"

       Borsch added that "Scripture would seem to say that people who
remarry after divorce are committing adultery. Is everything the 
church
teaches doctrine?"

       Blankingship fired back that the church's doctrine on marriage
remained the same, but that its discipline or practice--not 
doctrine--had
changed. Blankingship summed up his arguments by saying that
resolutions of General Convention--which he said is a determiner of
church doctrine in the Episcopal Church--reaffirms doctrine which

Episcopal News Service - #1397

CHURCH HAS NO DOCTRINE ON ORDAINING
HOMOSEXUALS, DEFENSE CONTENDS

BY MIKE BARWELL
AND SARAH BARTENSTEIN

       (ENS) WILMINGTON, Delaware--Defenders of retired
bishop Walter Righter contend that the Episcopal Church has no
clear doctrine on the ordination of homosexual persons.

       Attorney Michael Rehill, chancellor of the Diocese of
Newark who is defending Righter, said in the opening hearing
before the Court for the Trial of a Bishop on Tuesday afternoon,
that the Episcopal Church actually has very little doctrine--that
is, those things which a member must believe in order to belong
to the church.

       At issue is whether Righter violated his ordination vows
as a bishop, and publicly held false doctrine by knowingly
ordaining a non-celibate homosexual man as a deacon in 1990.
If convicted of the charges--known as a presentment--the 72-
year-old Righter could be deposed as a bishop, or suspended
from performing priestly duties, or simply admonished.

       Rehill, who spoke for nearly three hours Tuesday
afternoon, argued that doctrine is limited to those beliefs to
which all Christians must subscribe as members of the faith,
such as the divinity of Jesus, or the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
Other matters of faith are simply church teachings or matters of
discipline, subject to change over time, Rehill said. But if a
bishop does not agree with a particular teaching, that does not
constitute heresy.

       As they had done during the morning session with A.
Hugo Blankingship, church advocate (prosecutor) various
members of the nine-member court interrupted Rehill with
frequent questions. They asked for clarification of his definitions
of doctrine and discipline, and grilled him about whether
doctrine can change over time.

       Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis, president of the
court, asked the defense if there were levels or degrees of
doctrine. "One could say there is doctrine with a capital "D," or
dogma, and then there is teaching, something which is one of
the functions of bishops that may have various levels of
authority in the church. And you put all such teaching which is
not dogma under the heading of discipline?"


DOCTRINE OR DISCIPLINE?

       Rehill agreed that anything which is not dogma or
doctrine is discipline, and is advisory as to how we live together
with other people in the world. The Episcopal Church, he said,
has assigned precious few teachings to the category of doctrine. 

       "Doctrine is the most overused and misunderstood word
in our church," Rehill asserted. He named as the sources of
doctrine the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the historic
creeds. If it isn't there, it isn't doctrine, he said. But he added
that not everything in the Bible or the Prayer Book is doctrine.
He pointed to the writings of St. Paul, saying he found many of
the apostle's writings, particularly those about slavery and the
treatment of women,"disturbing," because they were written in a
culture which is radically different from the one in which we
live. He said that while the Prayer Book contains a service for
the sacrament of marriage, that does not constitute a doctrine of
marriage.

       "What I am suggesting is that just as the unique nature of
God does not change," Rehill asserted, "our doctrine of God
does not change. How we respond to God's call will change.
That will change in every generation, because that is what we
are called to do."

       Rehill also referred to a report from the Church of
England which states that all bishops are called to be both
guardians of the faith and "apostolic pioneers."

       "It does not mean building a wall around the faith, and
keeping people away from it. It means, be sure that as you test
the Gospel against the world and the world against the Gospel,
that you do so faithfully."

       Whether the Episcopal Church has a doctrine pertaining
to the ordination of persons engaged in sexual relationships
outside marriage is the central issue to be decided for the first
part of the trial.


Episcopal News Service - #1399

Court for the Trial of a Bishop calls for further
statements to clarify issues

by James Solheim

       (ENS) The Court for the Trial of a Bishop, convened to 
consider
whether or not Bishop Walter Righter taught false doctrine and 
violated his
ordination vows by ordaining a non-celibate gay man in 1990, has 
called for
a memorandum from each side to help it clarify the underlying issues.

       Following a public, full-day hearing on February 27 at the 
Cathedral
Church of St.  John in Wilmington, Delaware, the court went into 
chambers
in an effort to determine whether the church has sufficient 
doctrine to
proceed with a full-blown trial.

       The court said that it would reach its decision and issue a 
written
response as soon as possible but made it clear that it would take 
several
weeks.

       On March 1, however, the court notified attorneys for both 
sides
that the court wants them to write a memorandum addressing two 
questions:

       "Do resolutions, statements and/or actions of the General
       Convention or House of Bishops constitute disciplinary
       authority, as distinct from doctrine, violation of which
       subjects a bishop, priest or deacon to Presentment under Title
       IV?"

       And, second,

       "With particular attention to the issue of discipline, does 
the
       ordination of a noncelibate homosexual person constitute a
       violation of the ordaining bishop's Oath of Conformity?"

       The court set a deadline of March 25 for the memoranda. Each 
side
can respond with a reply by April 9.

       The court also denied a motion filed by Righter's attorney 
at a
pre-trial hearing December 8 in Hartford, Connecticut. The motion 
asked the
court to sever the second count that charged Righter with violating 
his
ordination vows.   The motion claimed that the court did not have
jurisdiction on Count 2 because the canonical procedures for 
bringing a
bishop to trial for offenses other than "holding and teaching...any
doctrine contrary to that held by this church" have not been 
followed. It
suggested that the count should be referred back to the presiding 
bishop
for consideration by a panel of bishops and a Board of Inquiry.

       The court did not rule on the motion because it decided to 
"consider
the issue of doctrine first," which it did at the Wilmington 
hearing. In
its March 1 response, the court said that the motion was "denied" 
but did
not offer an explanation of its action.


Episcopal News Service - #1401

COURT HOLDS HEARING TO DETERMINE CHURCH DOCTRINE
ON ORDINATION OF GAYS

BY JAMES SOLHEIM

       (ENS) For the first time in 75 years, and only the second 
time in
the Episcopal Church's history, a court of bishops gathered 
February 27
to consider charges that a colleague had taught false doctrine.

       Packed into the Great Hall of the Cathedral Church of St. 
John in
Wilmington, Delaware, amidst a crush of media and observers, the nine
bishops of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop heard a full day of
arguments on the doctrine of the church as it relates to the 
ordination of
non-celibate homosexuals.

       The hearing, a first step in the trial of Walter Righter, 
retired
bishop of Iowa, sought to establish whether there is a doctrinal 
basis for
charges brought against Righter of "holding and teaching . . . 
doctrine
contrary to that held by this church" and of violating his ordination
vows. 


LONG PATH TO TRIAL

       The path leading to the trial began in 1990, when Righter, 
while
serving as an assistant bishop in the Diocese of Newark, ordained 
Barry
Stopfel as a deacon. Stopfel, who has since been ordained as a 
priest, is
a homosexual who was living in a relationship with another man.

       In January of 1995, 10 bishops filed charges against Righter,
claiming that the ordination of a non-celibate homosexual was at odds
with the doctrine of the Episcopal Church. A necessary one-quarter of
the House of Bishops subsequently agreed that the charges should go 
to
the court.

       In a pre-trial hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, last 
December, the
court granted a motion calling for a discussion of whether the 
church had
a doctrine on the ordination issue sufficient to move to a 
full-blown trial
of Righter.  

       Media interest in the so-called "heresy trial" has been great.
Almost a hundred reporters, photographers and video camera operators
swarmed around the Wilmington cathedral as the hearing commenced.
But once Bishop Edward Jones of Indianapolis, president of the court,
opened the session, cameras were banished and the makeshift courtroom
was cleared of all but the 150 observers and accredited press. In an
atmosphere of dignity touched with occasional flashes of humor, the
opposing attorneys and the nine bishops proceeded to pick their way
through the thicket of Episcopal doctrine.


A TRIAL ABOUT DOCTRINE

       "This case is about the doctrine of Christian marriage ... 
and it is
about family values," said A. Hugo Blankingship, Jr., the retired
chancellor of the Diocese of Virginia who served as Church 
Advocate, or
attorney for those bringing the charges. "This case first and 
foremost is
about authority, it is about the authority of Holy Scripture and 
the role it
will play in our church," he said in the opening statement of his 
two and
one-half hour presentation.    

       Blankingship said that the church has consistently upheld "the
traditional teaching of the church on marriage, marital fidelity, and
sexual chastity as the standard of sexual morality." And he argued 
that
candidates for ordination "are expected to conform to this standard."
That is why "we believe it is not appropriate for this church to 
ordain a
practicing homosexual, or any person who is engaged in a heterosexual
relationship outside of marriage," he said, quoting a 1979 General
Convention resolution that is a major point of contention in the 
trial.

       Blankingship argued for a broad definition of the church's
doctrine, one that is supported by Scripture, the historic creeds 
of the
early church, and the Book of Common Prayer, but also including
resolutions and statements of the church's General Convention and the
House of Bishops.

       He said that the trial was "a matter of last resort" by 
those who
saw the "seeds of anarchy" in the actions of bishops who act as "Lone
Rangers" in their dioceses, without regard for the opinion of the 
rest of
the church. Stressing the importance of the trial for the future, he
warned, "History will judge how relevant the Episcopal Church was in
its hour of trial." 
       

DOES DOCTRINE CHANGE?

       Bishops on the court took an active role in questioning the
lawyers for both sides. "Suppose I agree that there is a doctrine of
marriage," Bishop Cabell Tennis of Delaware said, interrupting

Blankingship. "The question I'm struggling with is whether doctrine
is
fixed or whether it changes." 

       Tennis pointed out that the Episcopal Church has liberalized 
its
own position on divorce and remarriage and he suggested that such an
action could be interpreted as a change in its doctrine. 

       The church has changed its policy and its discipline but not 
its
doctrine, Blankingship responded. It still teaches that sexual 
expression
should be limited to life-long, monogamous marriage between a man and
a woman.                                                    

       "Scripture clearly says remarriage is adultery, so there 
seems to
be a strong reinterpretation of those Scriptures," observed Bishop
Frederick Borsch of Los Angeles. He asked if all teaching by the 
church
would be considered doctrine. "Insofar as those teachings incorporate
Scripture and are grounded in Scripture, then the answer would be 
yes,"
Blankingship responded.

        Jones suggested that there might be "different levels of 
truth in
the church," different types of doctrine, some more important than
others.                   
       "
       Who determines what is doctrine?" asked Bishop Arthur
Walmsley, retired bishop of Connecticut. "What is the authoritative
body?"                       

       Blankingship said that doctrine can only be changed by the 
church
itself and must stand the test of Scripture. He said that "very few"
resolutions of General Convention involve doctrine. Later he 
referred to
a Church of England report that contended there was "evolving
convergence" and "ultimate biblical consensus" that sexual activity
outside of marriage was wrong and that homosexual behavior was
"especially dishonorable."      

       When asked about the 1979 resolution, Blankingship said, "This
court has to decide if this is an enforceable resolution."  In the 
absence
of a Supreme Court, the General Convention becomes the arbiter of its
own decisions, he added, underscoring the assumption that the issue 
will
be on the agenda for the 1997 General Convention in Philadelphia.


NARROW DEFINITION OF DOCTRINE

       "Doctrine is the most overused and misunderstood word in our
church," asserted Michael Rehill, chancellor of the Diocese of 
Newark,
attorney for Righter. Arguing for a narrow definition of sources of
doctrine, what one judge called a "minimalist" approach,  he 
included the
Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the historic creeds. "Everything
else is a matter of discipline," he said.

       "Doctrine deals with our relationship to God, discipline 
deals with
our relationships with each other," Rehill argued. He called the 
charges
against Righter and the trial "curious and baffling." In fact, he 
said, "this
case trivializes doctrine. It says that doctrine is whatever the 
General
Convention or the House of Bishops vote at a given meeting." That
would mean that doctrine could "change from meeting to meeting and
year to year," he said.                     

       Rehill claimed that the 1979 resolution of General 
Convention is
"unenforceable because it doesn't say anything about enforcement,
because it is not a law, it is not prescriptive, it is advisory." He
contended that, if the church intended to prohibit the ordinations 
of non-
celibate gays and lesbians, it could "do so easily by changing some 
of the
canons, if that were the will of the Episcopal Church." He pointed 
out
that efforts to change the canons "have failed again, and again, and
again." And he said that the church had confessed that it was "not 
of a
single mind" in its understanding on the issue.

       Walmsley asked pointedly where the middle ground was in the
church's attempt to find its mind on issues that clearly have 
doctrinal
overtones or doctrinal basis but are not part of a doctrinal core 
of beliefs.



WHERE'S MIDDLE GROUND?

       "Most of our church is in the middle, wrestling with these 
issues"
of sexuality, Rehill responded. "That's the middle ground." But he 
said
the court was not being asked to deal with all other sexuality 
issues, as
important as they might be, but only with ordination. And there is no
doctrine on the ordination issue, Rehill asserted. "It doesn't 
exist, you
can't find it anywhere.... I may not know what doctrine is, but I 
know
this isn't doctrine."          

       According to Rehill, those who brought charges against Righter
did so because of "a sense of frustration that we haven't been able 
to stop
ordinations which the presenters believe are contrary to the will 
of God."

       In a closing session, Tennis asked a hypothetical question. 
If the
court agrees that Righter is guilty, "would that mean that all 
homosexual
priests in this church who are living in committed relationships
ought to
be deposed--and that bishops who did not act to depose them would
themselves be guilty of violating the doctrine of the church?"
Blankingship, clearly uncomfortable with the implications of the 
question,
said that it was "essentially a diocesan problem and not a national
canon."

       In suggesting possible middle ground, Blankingship said 
that, in
determining what is "best for the church," the respondent, Righter,
should yield by admitting that the Episcopal Church "has a moral
doctrine by which we stand." And perhaps the presenters should 
yield by
not seeking a harsh judgement against Righter.

       Sally Johnson, chancellor of the Diocese of Minnesota and a 
lay
assessor for the court, said after the hearing that the canons seem 
to
make it possible to appeal the decision of the court on doctrine. 

FURTHER CLARIFICATION

       On March 1 the court notified the two attorneys that it 
would like
them each to prepare a memorandum addressing the key issues: Do
actions of the church "constitute disciplinary authority, as 
distinct from
doctrine," that could lead to a presentment? And also, "With 
particular
attention to the issue of discipline, does the ordination of a 
non-celibate
homosexual person constitute a violation of the ordaining bishop's 
Oath
of Conformity?"

       The court set a deadline of March 25 for the memoranda and 
each
side can file a reply by April 9. No decision is expected until the
memoranda and replies have been received and discussed by members of
the court.        

--JAMES SOLHEIM IS DIRECTOR OF NEWS AND INFORMATION
FOR THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.  


Louie Crew's "Is there a heretic in the House?

Copyright 1995 by Louie Crew, Po. O. Box 30, Newark, NJ 07101.  
Freely
quote or publish, but only if you acknowledge properly.  Send hard 
copy
of any print publication.

Send mail to: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu



IS THERE A HERETIC IN THE HOUSE?

Many tell me that they are of the opinion that the trial is not about
homosexuality, but rather about doctrine and discipline.  

I suspect many who who went to the Council of Jerusalem felt the same
way:  This trial is not about circumcision; it is about doctrine and
discipline.  But do note, please, that since the Council at 
Jerusalem, 
the Church has not been requiring circumcision or other kosher.
 

Bishop Ackerman seemed to make this same assesment when he and I 
nattered
at Kanuga in September.  Last March, also at Kanuga, he had told my
bishop, Jack Spong, that although he had been one of the 10 who 
brought
the presentment he was not going to consent to it.  Bishop Ackerman 
then
reneged without even telling my bishop; yet my bishop had taken 
much heat
for supporting him when Bishop Ackerman almost came up short of the 
votes
needed for his consecration.  In sending me to represent him at the
evangelism conference, my bishop asked me to tell Bishop Ackerman 
that he
was extremely disappointed that Bishop Ackerman had lied to him. 


"Louie," Bishop Ackerman told me, "I fully meant what I said to 
Jack in
the spring, and I was wrong not to call and tell him that I had 
changed my
mind.  I signed the presentment only on the last day and only because
Bishop Benitez assured me that the presentment would be withdrawn at
Portland.  Louie, I think I will never sign another presentment 
again,
ever, not about anything, even if I feel I ought. I feel very bad 
about
this." 


When Bishop Salmon told the Commission on Human Affairs that the 
trial is
not about homosexuality but about polity, I asked, "Then are you 
saying
that the Church is scape-goating lesbians and gays?"  He replied, 
"yes." 


Scape-goating is evil.  If the trial is about the way that bishops do
business, surely we should begin by asking why they are doing the 
immoral
business of taking a group already much beseiged on all sides and 
using us
as scapegoats for mere polity.  I cannot think of another minority 
group
on the planet that they would consider treating this cavalierly, 
yet in
this case, they seem to see nothing wrong in doing so.  


I hear absolutely no good news in the notion that the trial is not 
really
about homosexuals:  I hear only the world's message:  this is the 
only
group it's still safe to abuse. 


The world which will watch the trial does not give a tinker's 
malediction
about the polity of the Episcopal Church.  The media which will 
cover this
trial does not for a moment believe that this trial is primarily 
about
polity and collegialty.  If that were true, you would have only the 
same
hard-core church press there to cover it.  That will not be the 
case.  


The press knows exactly why "the fine upstanding Episcopal Church," 
the
"church of presidents,"  the [fill in the blank with any of their 
standard
stereotypes about ECUSA] is willing to violate its own sense of 
decorum
and make a public spectacle of itself. 


I agree that most bishops would not say they're going for Walter or 
even for lesbians and gays.  It's never easy to admit whom you're 
going for.  It's always easier to ignore your victims and to say 
that 
you're doing this on the basis of some high-sounding principle.  


The press will be at the heresy trial for the same reason it went 
to the
Scopes trial:  An antequated notion of God is trying to deprive God's
people of the right to use their minds and hearts to attend to new 
truth.

  
In backing the state and William Jennings Bryan in 1925, parts of the
church wrote themselves out of the lives of many of the best minds in
America.  When Scopes lost, textbook makers would not publish 
biologically
honest textbooks until Sputnik (1957); for the 32-year interval, 
Bryan's
ghost hung like the shadow of the dark ages on the minds of 
biologists,
biochemists, physicians.......  The parts of the church that backed 
Bryan
did more to undermine the church's influence in the community than
anything on the secular world's agenda could possibly have done. 


If the church prefers rigor mortis, let it join those who cast the 
first
76 stones.  It won't help at all to say, "Oh but we love Walter and 
Louie
and all our ....." 


I'm not speculating.  I speak from the trenches.  We've been bringing
persons into this church by the thousands, and thousands more are
watching, most in utter amazement that a church with a strong 
reputation
for rationality has even consented, here at the doorway to the 21st
century, to drop all other important matters and try a man for 
heresy! 
Surely he must have done something horrendous and eggregious to 
merit the
attention the same church would not give to Bishop Pike 30 years 
ago?! 
Not so!  The House has consented to the trial knowing full well 
that 111 
other bishops have done one or more of the "heretical" acts with 
which 
he is charged.  One of the "proofs" that he's a heretic is that the
poor fellow just voted the wrong way!  Seriously, that's one of the 
major
pieces of evidence!  


Every Episcopalian with half an i.q. point left ought to be 
profoundly
embarrassed.  The vast majority of adult Episcopalians fled 
denominations
where they had to hang their minds at the door, and now we are 
captive to
a trial where such mindlessness is aired for all the world to see. 


You may be surprised to know that, having said all that, I agree 
with those
who say that this trial is not about lesbians and gays as the media 
will
proclaim.  But I see it as not about polity and collegiality either.
This trial is about the love of God:

Millions have seen the preliminary network coverage of this trial 
and have
concluded, as many have rightly concluded before the lesbigay issue 
came
along, that the Episcopal Church is less than honest when it 
proclaims
boldly everywhere, "The Episcopal Church welcomes you."  Millions 
more 
have concluded the same thing about God!


Most who see the lie in the claim to welcome don't care any more 
about
lesbigays than do the presenting bishops.  But many, many of them 
wonder
whether God loves them, or maybe even whether the Episcopal Church in
their community would welcome them, given their understanding of 
their own
weakness and their own unworthiness.  The very fact that we are 
having the
trial has given far too many their answer. 


It's not God's answer.  It's not my answer.  I know how much God 
loves 
not just me, but my enemies as well.  It's in knowing that God 
loves my 
enemies that I most discover that God has changed me, because 
before God 
loved me, I could not have thought like that.


I believe that God calls lesbians and gays to love well this church 
that
so egregiously abuses us that the whole world might know the only 
good
news there is now or ever has been:  God loves absolutely everybody 
and
wants us in joy to love everybody too. 


Lynda Bustilloz      bustillo@ix.netcom.com
... And yesterday the planet seemed to be going so well..
--- IM2.29+/FE1.45a+/PB2.12+
 * Origin: Xtians are uncomplicated beings: pure and simpleton. 
(1:109/601)