New York Times needed more liberal clergy

clerical attireLegislators must go crazy, whenever they enter the arena of church-state law, trying to write laws that protect the innocent without creating legal sanctuaries in which the demons of fraud and corruption have even more room to dance.

After all, the First Amendment makes it clear that the government is supposed to give religious expression and practice every benefit of almost every doubt.

What do I mean? Let’s say that you have, as Exhibit A, Father Frank of the Roman Catholic Church and your goal is to protect his rights as a clergyman. Don’t focus on issues of taxes and property at the moment. Let’s just say, to consider an issue that has played a major role in church-state law, that you want to protect his right to hear the confessions of undocumented workers without having to worry about government officials bugging him about what he’s hearing.

Now, try to write a law that protects all the rights of Father Frank, yet somehow allows government officials to crack down on the shady activities of our Exhibit B. This is Father Not-So-Frank, who, via a mail-order-bishop, has become a priest in a tiny splinter church that insists it is just as valid as the Vatican. Let’s call it the Eastern Old Catholic Liberal Orthodox Communion of the Utrecht Empire or something like that.

Trust me, these churches are out there.

Our Father Not-So-Frank is a full-time mail man and, next month, he’ll compete his advanced online training and become a bishop. Then he’ll start cashing checks and ordaining priests of his own, at his split-level cathedral and parsonage in suburban Oklahoma City.

Now, how does the U.S. Congress pass a law against what this man is doing without hurting the “real” — sorry for the scare quotes — priest? By the way, while I am at it, do counselors in the Church of Scientology have the same rights? What if they refuse to discuss the dollars and cents of their work?

You probably know where I am going with this. I’m working my way around to Part II of reporter Diana B. Henriques‘ massive In God’s Name investigative series in the New York Times. This is the installment titled “Where Faith Abides, Employees Have Few Rights.”

Here is the big news in this story, the good news and the bad news. The good news is that religious groups are free to pick their own leaders and they have the legal right to ordain, hire and fire people based on whether they believe the doctrines of the particular religious group doing the ordaining, hiring and firing. What’s the bad news? It’s pretty much the same as the good news, because this opens the door for Father Not-So-Frank as well as allowing Father Frank and his superiors to do their thing with as little government interference as possible.

The bottom line: There is no way to force religious groups to be democracies.

The pope does not have to be an equal opportunity employer. Neither do all those independent Baptist churches that dot the street corners in Everytown, Texas. Neither does the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship at Harvard University. It is OK if your local Orthodox synagogue refuses to hire a Assemblies of God pastor or, for that matter, a Reform rabbi. The same thing goes for the people who teach in these religious bodies’ schools, answer their telephones and do all kinds of other tasks in these voluntary religious associations.

I am pretty sure that Henriques knows this. It is not as clear that she realizes that it is hard to protect this constitutional right for the angels without making life easier for the people that some of us consider demons. She does know about the laws that are on the books:

The most sweeping of these judicial protections … is called the ministerial exception. Judges have been applying this exception, sometimes called the church autonomy doctrine, to religious employment disputes for more than 100 years. As a rule, state and federal judges will handle any lawsuit that is filed in the right place in an appropriate, timely manner. But judges will almost never agree to hear a controversy that would require them to delve into the doctrines, governance, discipline or hiring preferences of any religious faith. Citing the protections of the First Amendment, they have ruled with great consistency that congregations cannot fully express their faith and exercise their religious freedom unless they are free to select their own spiritual leaders without any interference from government agencies or second-guessing by the courts.

To do otherwise would be an intolerable government intrusion into employment relationships that courts have called “the lifeblood” of religious life and the bedrock of religious liberty, explained Edward R. McNicholas, co-chairman of the national religious institutions practice in the Washington, D.C., office of Sidley Austin, a law firm with some of the country’s largest religious organizations among its clients.

Yes, judges and legislators are not supposed to get entangled in doctrine, which makes it pretty easy for some religious leaders to wave the doctrine flag and do all kinds of mean and even sinful things.

color rainbow12So what can the state do? Long ago, when I was doing my graduate work in church-state studies, I remember something one of my professors said. When push comes to shove and it comes time for the government to try to decide what is good religion and what is fake religion, just about the only things the cops can probe are profit, fraud and threat to life and safety. Other than that, religious groups are pretty much free to do their things.

I could go on and on, but let me make two final points.

Here is another crucial statement in this part of the Times package:

Religious employers have long been shielded from all complaints of religious discrimination by an exemption that was built into the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and expanded in 1972. That historic exemption allows them to give preference in hiring to candidates who share their faith. In recent years, some judges have also refused to interfere when religious groups have dismissed lesbians, unwed mothers and adulterous couples, even if they profess the same faith, because they have violated their employers’ religious codes.

Right. But Henriques really needed to add a few more words to that last sentence. It really should end by saying, “because they have violated the doctrinal and moral covenants that they signed of their own free will on the day they took their jobs.”

In other words, a Wiccan mega-coven — should one ever exist — has a right to dismiss its lesbian priestess if she decides to get married and become a Southern Baptist. A mosque can dismiss the leader of its preschool if he converts to Judaism and starts telling all the children about the glories of Israel. Focus on the Family can dismiss someone who has an affair. Or they can choose not to do so, if the leaders of the ministry believe the man or woman has repented.

That’s called “freedom of association.” It’s a pretty important concept. Someone at the Times needs to look that up.

However, it is clear that Henriques is aware that the same laws that protect conservative groups protect liberal religious groups. She even knows that some of our most important recent laws protecting religious liberty were passed with the help of the Clinton White House and super-broad coalitions of religious leaders that ranged from the Eagle Forum to the ACLU, from the National Council of Churches to the National Association of Evangelicals, from the Southern Baptists to the Episcopalians. On these issues, Pat Robertson was dancing with Bill Clinton (although it isn’t nice to dwell on that image).

So let me end there. What do I think Henriques should have done to improve and balance this story? She needed to talk to more clergy and experts on the religious left.

And almost all the church-state lawyers said: Amen.

Print Friendly

All hands on the Roman deck

ConsecrationAttention everyone who cares about MSM coverage of debates in modern Catholicism: Please help us watch, in the next 48 hours or so, how major newspapers cover a big story that is breaking right now. In fact, this story may run through the weekend because the visuals should be interesting, which may even lead to television coverage.

What’s the story? Here we go, starting with the Catholic News Service report from Rome:

Pope Benedict XVI is preparing to expand permission to use the Tridentine Mass, the pre-Vatican II rite favored by traditionalist groups, said an informed Vatican source.

The pope is expected to issue a document “motu proprio,” or on his own initiative, which will address the concerns of “various traditionalists,” said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said the new permission, or indult, was a papal decision, but was being done in cooperation with agencies of the Roman Curia. …

The Tridentine rite is currently available to groups of Catholics who ask and receive permission for its use from their local bishops. The old rite is celebrated in Latin and follows the Roman Missal of 1962, which was replaced in 1969 with the new Roman Missal.

Let me emphasize that this is a very hot, symbolic story for the Catholic left as well as for traditionalists. The big change would be removing bishops on the left from the decision-making process. They are going to howl, with good reason.

Now there is going to be a very interesting vocabulary issue in coverage of this issue, and we can see hints in the early Associated Press coverage by Victor L. Simpson. Note, in the following, the use of the word “reforms.” Reforms are, of course, good and anyone who overturns or weakens said “reforms” must, therefore, be doing something bad. Thus we see:

Pope Benedict XVI has decided to loosen restrictions on use of the old Latin Mass, making a major concession to ultraconservatives who split with the Vatican to protest liberalizing reforms, a Vatican official said Wednesday.

And there is this:

The late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founded the Swiss-based Society of St. Pius X in 1969 in opposition to the reforms of the 1962-65 Second Vatican Council, particularly allowing Mass to be celebrated in local languages instead of Latin. The Vatican excommunicated Lefebvre in 1988 after he consecrated four bishops without Rome’s consent.

Ah, so there is a chance that newspapers that view this story from a strictly modernist point of view — there are, I imagine, few high-Mass Catholics in the typical newsroom — may even say that Pope Benedict XVI is “dividing” the modern church or bowing his knee (or words to that effect) to schismatics.

So what would the opposite be? They could say that liberalized use of the Latin Mass represents a nod to diversity. It can even be a sign of unity in multilingual parishes. No, honestly.

So help us watch this story in the days ahead. And, of course, you can cruise over to Catholic blogger Amy Welborn’s Open Book for all the updates there.

Print Friendly

Cue the theme from Jaws

other jawsposter photo 01 mdAttention all reporters who cover God and Hollywood, although not in that order.

Click here and set your watches. Two words: Mel Gibson.

OK, add a third word: Interview.

He … is making progress with his criminal and personal healing: participating in a recovery program, attending court-ordered alcohol-rehabilitation classes and meeting privately with Jewish leaders to understand the source of his “vicious words.”

And Gibson’s new film, “Apocalypto,” will be released by Disney on Dec. 8. He spoke with Diane Sawyer somewhere in Southern California recently for a two-part TV interview scheduled to air on Disney-owned ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Oct. 12 and 13. This is the first time Gibson has talked to the media since his arrest.

The interview “will be a segment in the show,” said ABC news spokeswoman Bridgette Maney. “It’s not going to be the entire ‘Good Morning America’ that day.”

As for what to expect during the discussion, Gibson’s publicist, Alan Nierob, said, “We’ll have to wait and see.”

You betcha.

I, of course, still want to know if she will dare ask him how all of this controversy has (a) affected his Catholic faith and (b) what he has done to surround himself with the kind of sacramental safety net that he used during The Passion of the Christ.

So what do you think are the odds?

Will she dare to ask him: Have you been to confession? Once a week, perhaps?

Print Friendly

Hey AP: Why didn’t she become a nun?

3virginmary btnHave you ever read a short Associated Press news report and then said to yourself, “Ah come on, there has to be more to this story than that.” That’s how I felt after reading the wire service story about the decision by 42-year-old Lori Rose Cannizzaro to take vows to become a “consecrated virgin.”

It seems that 116 or so newspapers printed this short report (and that’s just the Google News stat).

It isn’t a bad story. In fact, for such a short report, it manages to answer quite a few questions about what it means for a woman to take this rare liturgical step. Here’s the heart of the story:

Fewer than 200 women in the United States and 2,000 worldwide have declared their perpetual virginity this way, according to U.S. Association of Consecrated Virgins.

“There are people who think I’m nuts,” Cannizzaro said.

The ceremony was a revival of one of the church’s oldest rituals. The rite is available only to virgins, who agree to abstain from sex so they can dedicate their lives to Jesus Christ in what the association describes as a mystical marriage and a profound spiritual blessing. Each woman wears a band on her left ring finger as a symbol, much like a wedding band.

Cannizzaro, who is not a nun, will continue to live on her own and work as a cook at Christ the King Seminary in a Buffalo suburb. She said she has plenty of support from family and friends.

Cannizzaro explains that dating just wasn’t working for her. So she took two years of seminary classes to get ready to take her vows and that was that.

Like I said, the article tells us a bit about what a “consecrated virgin” is. What it does not do is tell us much about what she is not. I found myself wanting to know the answer to this simple question: In an age in which most Roman Catholic religious orders for women are aging and often fading, why didn’t this woman help out by becoming a nun?

In other words, what are the unique advantages of being a solitary “consecrated virgin,” as opposed to a sister who is part of a religious community, whether a trendy liberal one or a traditionalist Catholic order?

A visit to the Consecrated Virginity website answers a few questions, but not, unless I missed it, this question that is bugging me. One will find this information:

The consecrated virgin living in the world embodies a definitive vocation in itself. She is not a quasi-Religious, nor is she in a vocation that is in the process of becoming a Religious institute or congregation. Nevertheless, she is a consecrated person, with her bishop as her guide. By virtue of the Consecration, she is responsible to pray for her diocese and clergy. At no time is her diocese responsible for her financial support.

The consecrated virgin living in the world, as expressed in Canon 604, is irrevocably “consecrated to God, mystically espoused to Christ and dedicated to the service of the Church, when the diocesan bishop consecrates [her] according to the approved liturgical rite.” The consecrated virgin attends Mass daily, prays the Divine Office, and spends much time in private prayer. She can choose the Church-approved spirituality she prefers to follow.

Well, that helps a little. But I am still curious and I predict that other readers will be as well.

I think that I’ll ship this URL over to the omnipresent Amy Welborn and see what she knows.

Print Friendly

Smells like teen spirit

teens for jesusThe New York Times‘ Laurie Goodstein continues her in-depth coverage of evangelicals. She picks up on an evangelical campaign warning that teenagers are abandoning Christianity.

The campaign is based, as Goodstein notes, on a fairly laughable statistic that only 4 percent of teenagers will be “Bible-believing Christians” by the time they reach adulthood. I’m not sure how the statistic-inventer defines Bible-believing Christians, but that compares to 35 percent of Baby Boomers and 65 percent of the World War II generation. Some 6,000 pastors are attending meetings across the country to address the problem:

While some critics say the statistics are greatly exaggerated (one evangelical magazine for youth ministers dubbed it “the 4 percent panic attack”), there is widespread consensus among evangelical leaders that they risk losing their teenagers.

“I’m looking at the data,” said Ron Luce, who organized the meetings and founded Teen Mania, a 20-year-old youth ministry, “and we’ve become post-Christian America, like post-Christian Europe. We’ve been working as hard as we know how to work — everyone in youth ministry is working hard — but we’re losing.”

The board of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing 60 denominations and dozens of ministries, passed a resolution this year deploring “the epidemic of young people leaving the evangelical church.”

Among the leaders speaking at the meetings are Ted Haggard, president of the evangelical association; the Rev. Jerry Falwell; and nationally known preachers like Jack Hayford and Tommy Barnett.

Ted Haggard, eh? Would that be the same Ted Haggard who told Frank Lockwood of the Lexington Herald-Leader — also known as the Bible Belt Blogger — that the 4 percent claim was a scam? Here’s what Lockwood reported on Sept. 11:

A full-page advertisement in this month’s Christianity Today warns that America’s evangelicals may soon be on the endangered species list — as rare as snail darters, spotted owls and Chinook salmon.

But the ad, which is endorsed by the National Association of Evangelicals, is a false alarm — or at least an exaggeration — according to the group’s president — Pastor Ted Haggard.

“We’re church people. We always use fear and guilt to motivate people,” Haggard told Bible Belt Blogger, punctuating the quip with hearty laughter.

Ha ha ha! Anyway, it’s not that Goodstein fell for the ruse. She goes to great lengths to document just how ridiculous the 4 percent claim is. But she tries to get at the heart of the story by interviewing teens and others who seem to earnestly believe that Bible-believing Christians are threatened. She gets specifics from Christian teens trying to avoid immoral behavior in a world that countenances much of it. She interviews Notre Dame’s Christian Smith for perspective. She also interviews an author who tells of kids who felt peer pressure to become Christian:

The phenomenon may not be that young evangelicals are abandoning their faith, but that they are abandoning the institutional church, said Lauren Sandler, author of “Righteous: Dispatches from the Evangelical Youth Movement” (Viking, 2006). Ms. Sandler, who calls herself a secular liberal, said she found the movement frighteningly robust.

“This generation is not about church,” said Ms. Sandler, an editor at “They always say, ‘We take our faith outside the four walls.’ For a lot of young evangelicals, church is a rock festival, or a skate park or hanging out in someone’s basement.”

Wouldn’t that be interesting if that were the case? After years of reinforcing the idea that church is a rock festival, skate park or small group — growing teenagers had no institutional church to go back to? It’s definitely something worth looking into. Better data on what, if anything, is happening with evangelical teenagers would help stories tracking the group. The Barna Research Group, which specializes in surveying Christians, has put out books on teenagers in recent years. What other hard data are out there? What do recent surveys, such as the ones showing teens are less likely to have sex, have to do with this?

Print Friendly

Looking into the Pope’s heart

limboReligion reporter Ruth Gledhill of The Times (U.K.) has a notable wit and attitude that she brings to her job and her blog. That snappy style didn’t serve her so well in a story about the Roman Catholic concept of limbo.

Amy Welborn
wants to nominate the headline alone as the worst ever:

Pope tries to win hearts and minds by saving souls of unbaptised babies

The Pope hasn’t stated any such motivations and I doubt highly that Gledhill, her coauthor Richard Owen, or the unidentified headline writer have secret knowledge of same. The headline is indefensible. Gledhill and Owen try to support the claim, however, in their opening graphs:

The Pope will cast aside centuries of Catholic belief later this week by abolishing formally the concept of limbo, in a gesture calculated to help to win the souls of millions of babies in the developing world for Christ.

All the evidence suggests that Benedict XVI never believed in the idea anyway. But in the fertile evangelisation zones of Africa and Asia, the Pope — an acknowledged authority on all things Islamic — is only too aware that Muslims believe the souls of stillborn babies go straight to Heaven. For the Church, looking to spread the faith in countries with a high infant mortality rate, now is a good time to make it absolutely clear that stillborn babies of Christian mothers go direct to Heaven, too.

Oh calm down, Times writers. They later concede that the belief was never a formal doctrine, but after using words like “cast aside” and “abolishing” that imply otherwise. And again they characterize the motivations of the church as calculating. Reporters should consider incentives and motivations to help them get to the bottom of the story, but they shouldn’t speculate publicly on them without proof.

This week a 30-strong Vatican international commission of theologians, which has been examining limbo, began its final deliberations. Vatican sources said it had concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of “the universal salvation of God” and the “mediation of Christ”, whether baptised or not.

The theologians’ finding is that God wishes all souls to be saved, and that the souls of unbaptised children are entrusted to a “merciful God” whose ways of ensuring salvation cannot be known. “In effect, this means that all children who die go to Heaven,” one source said.

The commission’s conclusions will be approved formally by the Pope on Friday.

Oh really? I’m no John Allen Jr., but something tells me that it’s usually a bad idea to say that something in the Vatican will definitely happen — even if the consensus supports the conclusions. The International Theological Commission has been working on this and other issues for a while. But it has drafted documents before that weren’t approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Print Friendly

Voter guides and IRS basics

elect jesusThe crescendo leading up to this November’s election is starting to seem like that of a presidential election year. From a purely political standpoint, it’s about as fun a midterm election season as I’ve ever witnessed. Scandals are abounding. Bob Woodward has a new book out. And politicians are scrambling to snatch those 30 million or so regular churchgoers who did not vote in 2004.

This leads to stories about voter guides and everyone’s favorite government agency, the Internal Revenue Service. Stephanie Simon of the Los Angeles Times brought her impressive reporting skills to the story and reached a not-so-startling conclusion:

Their efforts at times push legal limits on church involvement in partisan campaigns. That is by design. With control of Congress at stake Nov. 7, those guiding the movement say they owe it to God and to their own moral principles to do everything they can to keep social conservatives in power.

Preachers “ought to put their toe right on the line,” said Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit law firm that supports conservative Christian causes.

Simon thoroughly documents how activists are pushing those legal limits. (Christianity Today‘s Ted Olsen pointed out on an earlier thread that Focus on the Family founder James Dobson is encouraging his followers to vote Republican.) Simon finds the Rev. Rick Scarborough, of that big place known as Texas, saying that “We urge [pastors] to avoid legal entanglement, but there are times in a pastor’s life when he needs to take a biblical stand. … Our higher calling is to Christ.”

Previous articles made little of the actual result of an IRS church investigation. But with anything regulatory, the government must engage in a lot of education. Simon makes that point clear in her article in a way I had not seen lately. She also follows my favorite maxim — show, don’t tell — regarding those tricky voter guides:

The voter pamphlets are supposed to be neutral, but often present issues through a distinctly partisan lens. A guide distributed by a conservative group in Minnesota in 2004 laid out the candidates’ views on aborting “unborn babies.” One produced this year by the liberal evangelical group Sojourners describes immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops as the only way to bring peace to Iraq.

Contrast that with a report from Alan Cooperman of The Washington Post on the supposedly big announcement (it was an A6 story on Friday, a heavy news day if I recall correctly) that the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good would “distribute at least 1 million voter guides before the Nov. 7 elections, emphasizing church teachings on war, poverty and social justice as well as on abortion, contraception and homosexuality.” Cooperman tells us all about the issues (and provides handy links here and here to the actual voter guides), but fails to lay out the positions. Simon did this and showed how blatantly partisan these guides are from both sides of the aisle.

Now I am just as aware as anyone else that a good news story needs a good news hook, so Cooperman was certainly justified using the release of the Common Good guides, but compare it to Simon’s thorough 1,500-word survey of the highly relevant issue. Are Post editors preventing Cooperman from having the space and play he needs to do something similar? (By the way, Simon mentions Cooperman’s story in one paragraph near the end of her article.)

clintonBasic ground-laying content, giving the article depth and balance, is missing from Cooperman’s story. Check out Simon’s short summary of the matter:

The law restricting political activity of churches and charities dates to 1954, when then-Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson pushed it through in a pique of anger over a nonprofit’s effort to derail his reelection. Tax-exempt organizations, including churches, may not participate or intervene in political campaigns on behalf of any candidate. Intervention is broadly defined as “any and all activities that favor or oppose one or more candidate for public office,” according to the Internal Revenue Service.

That sounds straightforward. In practice, though, there are many ways around the restriction, as the faithful recognize.

“If the pastor is doing the right job, the people will automatically vote for the right person,” said Gale Wollenberg, who belongs to a conservative evangelical church in Topeka, Kan.

So before you “rat out a church” for being too political, read Simon’s article and remember the decades-old roots of voter guides.

Print Friendly

Options on hot question No. 2

dan fireThe tmatt trio issue has inspired another solid question from a loyal reader.

For those new to the discussion, the trio is a set of three — duh — hot questions that I have often used when interviewing clergy and other Christian leaders during this era in which the whole liberal vs. conservative thing has become so rooted in politics, as opposed to doctrine. Once again let me stress that I developed these questions in the mid-1980s as a journalistic tool. I have found that these are the questions that, time after time, help me get past vague labels.

A reader has already asked about question No. 3, which is logical in an era when sex makes so many headlines. But here is the whole set, once again:

(1) Are the biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this event really happen?

(2) Is salvation found through Jesus Christ, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)?

(3) Is sex outside of the Sacrament of Marriage a sin?

Now, Jeff Hubbard has written in with a question about question No. 2. Here is the heart of his letter:

There was a post recently where you explained a little about your reasoning in asking the third question in the famed “TMatt Trio,” the one about sexuality.

I have a similar inquiry about the second question of said trio. … (It) seems this question leaves open the possibility of not getting substantive insight into the theological positions of the interviewee. For example, many people that would hold an inclusivist or universalist view about salvation (myself included) would be able to answer “yes” to this question with no qualms or reservations whatsoever. This is esp. true of Barthian universalists. (Who have a very Christocentric rationale for their universalism.)

Of course some universalists who are pomo/liberal-type folks would just flat out answer “no” to the question. However, a “yes” answer to the question leaves open the possibility for that person to fall anywhere on the theological spectrum … five point Calivinists, Wesleyans, fundies, evangelicals of all sorts, and some universalitsts all could feasibly answer “yes” to this question. So what I’m wondering is if any of these issues have ever come up in response to you asking this question, or one like it. Have you ever thought of fine-tuning this question to include more nuance?

Hubbard is right, of course. There are variations on the universalism that dominates our all-tolerant age. Questions about salvation, and whether any one faith is the true faith, often hover in the background of discussions of everything from public prayers by U.S. chaplains to faith-based initiatives in prisons and elsewhere to MPAA ratings for movies. It’s interesting that this “political” question is usually asked in connection with Christian projects, as opposed to Muslim.

This simple question might not tell you much in the context of a check-this-box opinion poll.

However, I have been asking these questions in the context of interviews, often face-to-face interviews. What you find is that the person being interviewed almost always tries to qualify the answer. This yields information about the very variations of belief that Hubbard describes. It is an especially interesting question to ask Roman Catholics in the post-Vatican II world. Often, it has been years or decades since Catholics have heard a sermon on heaven or hell or questions about how one gets to one or the other.

And what about question No. 1? In the late 1980s, I asked that question to five candidates for the open post of bishop in the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado. The man who eventually won the job went around and around and never did say “yes” or “no.” It was clear that he did not want to answer. That was, of course, a very revealing answer.

Speaking of click-this-box polls about religion, our friends at Beliefnet still have the Belief-O-Matic quiz online. Is this a revised edition? It looks more nuanced than the one I wrote about long ago (in cybertime). Also note the religion-quiz page, with a wide variety of quizzes for people of different faiths. It’s the tmatt trio times 666.

Print Friendly