Agreeing on the problem (but not agreeing that it is a problem)

I’m digging through some rapidly aging bookmarks and came across two posts here on Patheos from consecutive days earlier this month.

The first post is from Peter Enns, who asks, “Can Evangelical Colleges and Seminaries Be Truly Academic Institutions?

Here is the problem in a nutshell. Many evangelical colleges and seminaries in America were founded in no small part as centers for defending and propagating earlier traditional positions against forces that coalesced in the 19th century: European higher criticism, biblical archaeology, and Darwin (evolution). The questions that get at the heart of evangelical concerns are: when the Bible was written, by whom, and is it historically accurate?

That defensive posture is quite evident in evangelical intuitions today (though not all, of course, and at times modified), but this raises a question for me: Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?

It is common for evangelical institutions to have as part of their statements of faith clear articulations about biblical inerrancy and how that dogmatic starting point (either implicitly or [explicitly]) dictates interpretive conclusions. The question, simply put, is whether such a posture can be called “academic” by generally agreed upon standards – which are standards that evangelicals would quickly agree to in areas that do not touch evangelical dogma.

Another way of putting it is whether evangelical institutions can maintain a credible academic reputation when they officially promulgate positions that are only held within those institutions of similar ideology and not the academic discipline of biblical scholarship in general.

I was still trying to figure out whether it was a good thing or a bad thing that Enns was writing this while employed at my alma mater, when the very next day I came across this post on the “Thoughtlife” blog on Patheos’ evangelical channel, “Is Mark Noll Right? Is There No Evangelical Mind?“:

Schools like Union, Wheaton, Taylor, King’s College, Gordon, Messiah, Grove City, and my own institution, Boyce College, have ramped up their academic programs. I of course have concerns about an over-correction in this area among some institutions; some Christian colleges and universities are simply desperate for academic credibility, which poses a serious threat to ongoing scriptural fidelity. Ours is a serious intellectualism (the most serious, should be, given Matt 22:37), but it is a bounded one. We should advocate a confessional intellectualism (which, admittedly, many academics will distrust, and which may hamper the already difficult process of academic recognition).

So the good news is that there seems to be complete agreement on the nature of the problem Enns identifies.

And the bad news is there still seems to be disagreement that it’s actually a problem.

If you really believe that “unbounded” scholarship “poses a serious threat to ongoing scriptural fidelity,” then you have already conceded that you do not believe the scripture can withstand intellectual scrutiny. This “threat” only makes sense if you believe that the scriptures are a fraud, vulnerable to exposure.

With defenders like that, the Bible doesn’t need enemies.

 

  • Water_Bear

    “If you really believe that “unbounded” scholarship “poses a serious threat to ongoing scriptural fidelity,” then you have already conceded that you do not believe the scripture can withstand intellectual scrutiny. This “threat” only makes sense if you believe that the scriptures are a fraud, vulnerable to exposure.
    With defenders like that, the Bible doesn’t need enemies.”

    It’s funny, whenever I start thinking this way (“They must know what they’re saying is wrong or they wouldn’t be so afraid of science…”) I feel kind of stupid and have to stop. After all, a version of that same argument is still thrown around at atheists, and it seems just as ridiculous either way. After all, who would choose to believe something they knew was wrong, or not to believe something they knew was true?

    But then again, Fred usually seems to get the evangelical mindset. Is this really an accurate summation of their thought processes?

  • EllieMurasaki

    I don’t know that it IS accurate, but it certainly LOOKS accurate. Does that make sense?

  • Water_Bear

    Quite a bit actually. It’s a weird thought though; cognitive dissonance drives me up the walls whenever I notice it, and it really disrupts my life until I resolve it. It’s hard to picture someone just… dealing with it and living with the doublethink 24/7.

  • ReverendRef

    If you really believe that “unbounded” scholarship “poses a serious
    threat to ongoing scriptural fidelity,” then you have already conceded
    that you do not believe the scripture can withstand intellectual
    scrutiny.

    This reminded me of a quote from Elton Trueblood (who said lots of stuff):  “The unexamined faith is not worth having.”

    It seems to me that the desire for control is overriding the willingness to develop faith.  When someone says, “some Christian colleges and universities are simply desperate for
    academic credibility, which poses a serious threat to ongoing scriptural
    fidelity,
    ” what they are really saying is, “We can’t trust people to make their own decisions about their faith.”

    This is really no different than the Church’s (and I mean “The Church” pre-
    Reformation and pre-denomination) desire to suppress Bibles printed in the vernacular.  If the common people couldn’t actually read the Bible, then they were at the mercy of what their priests and bishops told them what was in it and what to believe.

    It’s amazing to me to see a group of Protestants (a movement based on individual readings and interpretations) trying so hard to suppress examination and exploration in favor of both resource and thought control under the guise of “Protecting the Faith.”

    Church leadership apparently hasn’t improved much in the last 550 years or so.

  • http://flickr.com/photos/sedary_raymaker/ Naked Bunny with a Whip

    Ours is a serious intellectualism (the most serious, should be, given Matt 22:37)

    I wonder if ostrachan’s liability insurance would cover the eye-rolling related injury I just sustained.

  • Lori

    My fundie speak is a bit rusty. What exactly is  “a confessional intellectualism”? 

  • http://www.mccaughan.org.uk/g/ gjm

    It seems to me that it is possible to believe that open intellectual inquiry is a threat to “scriptural fidelity” without believing that the scriptures are a fraud, as follows: You postulate that although *perfectly conducted* open intellectual inquiry would vindicate (your view of) the scriptures for sure, perfectly conducted open intellectual inquiry is impossible or terribly unlikely, e.g. because the powers of evil have corrupted human minds so badly that even Real True Christians are liable to be deceived, or to deceive themselves.

    This seems like very much the kind of thing many evangelical Christians might believe. It seems like believing it might justify avoiding open intellectual inquiry into the Bible in favour of “a confessional intellectualism”. On the other hand, “the scriptures are a fraud” seems like very much the kind of thing evangelical Christians are not that likely to believe, even deep deep down in their hearts.

    So I’d guess that something like the view I described is a better explanation for the kind of comment Fred quotes from “Thoughtlife”, and for the attitude it expresses.

    Whether that view is defensible is another question entirely, of course.

    (My own view, which I mention only so that people can discount what I say appropriately on the basis of how obviously wrong I am if they wish to, is that it isn’t a defensible view, but that no less defensible than evangelical Christianity itself.)

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    Have you read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer (available at http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/ ). People with an authoritarian mindset don’t experience cognitive dissonance the way that many of the rest of us do. (Established by a number of the psychological studies Altemeyer has been doing for 30 years).

  • http://redwoodr.tumblr.com Redwood Rhiadra

    Good bloody question – Google only finds two hits for the phrase – this article and the one Fred is quoting…

  • smrnda

    Respected academic institutions do not make ideological statements the foundation for their existence, since doing so would undermine any credibility they had. It is true that certain departments in certain schools can more or less have a party line (the way libertarian economists at one time were dominant in the U of Chicago) there’s at least room for a person to express a dissenting conclusion and, provided they back it up with enough evidence, to remain a faculty member in good standing. 

    The problem is evangelicism has a concept of heresy – once your opinions are heretical, you are no longer an evangelical, perhaps no longer a Christian, and no longer welcome in the evangelical institution since they can’t have professors advocating heresy. Part of the reason is, perhaps, most academic institutions aren’t that invested in the opinions of their graduates. My alma mater isn’t concerned with my religious or political opinions really, but a Christian school is supposed to turn out Christian graduates – a well-educated atheist or agnostic (or even some other stripe of Christianity) would not be a success to those institutions.

    It’s just the goals and purposes are different and conflict. If evangelical schools want to be serious academically, they’ll have to follow the model of some Catholic institutions – there’s some course on theology you have to take that lays out the program, and the rest of the college is, fundamentally, just the same as a secular school.

  • LL

    “Can an institution claim to be fundamentally academic while at the same time centered on defending certain positions that are largely, if not wholly, out of sync with generations of academic discourse outside of evangelical boundaries?”

    LOL. 

    Yeah, sure it can. It’s wrong, but they can say it and probably get agreement by people too ignorant to know better. 

  • http://www.mymusingcorner.wordpress.com/ Lana

    I went to an evangelical college, and most of the religion professors did not believe the Bible was inerrant, and one of the English professors was a socialists and who taught communism from a sympathetic perspective. Yet the college was conservative, allowing only 5 second hugs, no making out,  must cover up tattoos, mandatory chapel.

  • http://profiles.google.com/lillakalleo Carl Isaacson

    We are a Christian college. We do not invest much of our credibility in our graduates coming out of our institution with our point of view. We don’t ask about your religious affiliation when you get here or when you leave. We do care that you are educated, thoughtful, productive and ethical. 

    How can this be? We are not part of the Evangelical Right – though we do consider ourselves and name ourselves as both Catholic and Evangelical. Folks in the evangelical movement really ought to get out more. There’s lots more to Christendom than the movement leads you to believe.

  • Ttricksterson

    Does it quack?  Does it waddle?  Does it swim on the waters surface?  Does it have a beak and feathers?  Well then.

  • Ben English

     This can’t be stated enough. Perhaps one of the reasons that these guys always seem so easy to piss off, so sensitive to being made fun of, and so quick to rage at any erosion of their privilege, is the strain on their minds dealing with cognitive dissonance so often. Sure, on some level they can mitigate it by telling themselves and each other–and reinforcing with Biblical proof texts–the idea that human knowledge and inquiry are, by default, so corrupted by our sinful desires that any idea or theory contradicting the infallible [interpretation of] scripture they cling to must by neccesity be corrupted.

    The fact that modern science has enables us to do and understand things the ancients could only have dreamed of is all well and good, but if that modern science also finds that the universe is billions of years old or that there’s fossil record of our species going back millions of years? Then that branch of science (but not, say, particle physics) must be corrupt. If it weren’t corrupt then they’d see all the [out-of-context anecdotes and desperately cobbled junk science we cling to as] evidence that the world is 6000 years old.

  • SisterCoyote

     It’s an interesting kind of double-think.

    The Bible is inerrant, and will always lead you to the truth – but you can only get there by reading it the same way we do.

    The Bible is inerrant, our faith is the only truth, and it’s obvious that science is wrong – but we can’t let you hear the opposing arguments, in case you decide they’re right.

    Your faith must be strong enough to weather any doubt, but whatever you do, don’t try to confront anything that might cause doubts.

    Reminds me of the story of a butterfly breaking out of its cocoon for the first time, and a kid decides to ‘help’ by brushing the cocoon away – which means that the blood vessels never develop in the far end of the wings, and the butterfly never grows to full strength, because it never had to struggle. How can you grow in faith if you blind yourself to anything that might be difficult to get through?

    I think it goes back to the whole All-Or-Nothing thing. If your faith in God, in Christ, in just about everything, is tied to the idea that the Bible is either wholly inerrant or wholly false, then it’s going to be very easy to knock that belief over, and it makes sense for pastors and teachers and such to try to keep questions far, far away from their institution – because such a fragile ideology cannot survive, not in that form… but another form of faith, another form of Christianity, one that’s questioning and wondering and thinking critically about the world, is just as dangerous to them as atheism. It’s all kinda sad.

  • Gotchaye

     Further, one could reasonably believe that even perfectly conducted intellectual inquiry can get things wrong.  We all believe that this can be true in the short run.  But many people believe it’s true in the long run too; this is essentially what people who think the Earth only /looks/ very old believe.  The Bible got it 100% right, and anything that could possibly shift belief from where it is right now is bad.  There’s no such thing as successful intellectual inquiry on this, because to the extent that it produces any effect, it will be moving you farther from the truth.

  • picklefactory

    This “threat” only makes sense if you believe that the scriptures are a fraud, vulnerable to exposure.

    Finally, I agree with them about something! Sorry, sorry. :D

    Have you read The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer…

    This book and Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me by Tavris and Aronson are the two books that have given the the most insight into how this kind of thing works.

    I think I have to add Noll’s book at last and finally get the trifecta!

  • mud man

    Many Evangelicals are trying hard to make something or other be real. Many Liberals have just given up the hope that it’s real, but pretending is fun/socially useful. Many Atheists try hard to make it NOT real. All of which is what comes from not relying on personal experience, which is where God is to be found, but you have to LOOK. Knock and ask sort of thing.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    5 second hugs? In COLLEGE? No making out — how could they know? Most people do not make out in public. 

    And did they seriously count how long people hugged each other? 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Many Atheists try hard to make it NOT real

    Huh?

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    And there I was thinking it had been a while since we’d had someone make a dickish patronising comment about what we really believe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tddalrymple Timothy Dalrymple

    To be fair, Fred, he did not say that unbounded intellectual inquiry was a threat to scriptural fidelity, but the desperation for academic credibility is a threat to scriptural fidelity. It’s possible, for instance, to be so eager for full acceptance into the academic guild that you’re willing to profess belief in anything that guild requires you to believe, even if you think the argument is stronger in favor of something else.  

    So, let’s say that I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And let’s say I believe that’s the most reasonable inference from the totality of my experiences and observations and research and reflection. But I’m also desperate to be loved and admired amongst the secular intelligentsia. Will I be a little more inclined to jettison my belief in the resurrection of Christ because of that desperation? Quite probably.

    I know that when evangelicals are posed over against the academy, especially with this audience, the inclination will be to view the academy as rigorously scientific and intellectual. But my experience is really quite different. I spent fourteen years at elite institutions, as a student, graduate student, doctoral student, and teacher. I had less respect for the academy at the end than I did at the beginning. In certain sectors of the academy, the modernist pursuit of truth remains. In many sectors, however, I found that I still held to classical academic ideals while the professors in these departments were far more postmodernist in their view of the academy as a grounds for marshaling political change. In those sectors, it was not so much rigorous and self-critical examination of the issues that carried the day, as it was the winds of intellectual fashion. 

    If I’m trying to win the respect of THAT tribe, then I may indeed be setting aside my better judgment, and abandoning my faithfulness to scripture, in order to appease whatever trends happen to be washing through the American Academy of Religion that year. 

    Along these lines, I wish that *you*, Fred (and I hope it’s clear I say this in a friendly tone), would apply a bit more self-criticism. I believe in those classical intellectual virtues, amongst which self-criticism is particularly important. And if you were a bit more self-critical, a bit more inclined to make sure you’re getting your interlocutor (in this case Owen Strachan, the proprietor of ThoughtLife) right and fairly, then you would have noted that it was “desperation for academic credibility” that concerns him. Evangelical intellectualism is “bounded” only insofar as it submits itself (critically, understanding the role of interpretation and etc) to the authority of the scripture — but it does so on the basis of conviction that this is the Word of God. If you believe that the Scripture is the Word of God (and not just a human witness to the Word of God, for instance), then it’s entirely reasonable to place yourself under its authority. And yes, this may create conflicts with the prevailing views in secular academies, partly because there is a different set of fundamental assumptions and partly because those prevailing views are sometimes driven by different impulses, political movements, and etc. In other words, if you spent a bit more time understanding your interlocutor charitably, you might find it harder to polemicize, but I think you’ll produce a much richer and more nuanced conversation. 

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    So, let’s say that I believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. And let’s say I believe that’s the most reasonable inference from the totality of my experiences and observations and research and reflection. But I’m also desperate to be loved and admired amongst the secular intelligentsia. Will I be a little more inclined to jettison my belief in the resurrection of Christ because of that desperation? Quite probably.

    No. 

    First, you are misusing the word “secular”. 

    Second, the vast majority of my history professors have not hidden their religious affiliations, whether Christian, Jewish, or otherwise. No one cares, so long as they do their jobs.

    You are starting from false premises, and you are therefore coming to false conclusions. 

    You are also using loaded terms. “Desperate”, “loved and admired”, “secular intelligentsia” (whatever that is), and “desperation” again. I wonder what kind of person you are imagining here. I am thinking he belongs in Oz and fears fire.

  • Mary

    You stuck your foot in your mouth with the athiests, but I generally agree with what you are saying about personal experience. I read a quote once that went something like this “Organized religion is a way to prevent a personal relationship with God.” That isn’t always true but it is true a great deal of the time. Everyone is busy trying to identify what makes a Christian or a follower of God. Ultimately the answer does not lie in dogma, it is a quality of the heart.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    You stuck your foot in your mouth with the athiests

    No, not just the atheists.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    It’s fun when someone manages to offend people who believe diametrically opposite things, isn’t it? I’m still not sure what mud man was even trying to say, though. All I can manage to figure is that he’s saying everyone who thinks differently from him is not only wrong, but dishonest about our beliefs.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I didn’t have to try hard to “make it not real.” I just had to live life in Christianity and see that it didn’t work. Not sure how much more ‘personal experience’ you can get than living your own life. 

    Meanwhile, my fiance has been trying desperately hard for a couple years now to find something, anything, that would prove what he grew up believing is real. But he can’t. God won’t talk to him. God won’t give him anything to base his faith on. And it kills him. He *wants* desperately to keep the faith he grew up in, but there’s nobody home. God just isn’t there. 

    So how do you explain this?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Remember this old gem?

    Even couples who are not talking or touching can be reprimanded. Sabrina
    Poirier, a student at Pensacola who withdrew in 1997, was disciplined
    for what is known on the campus as “optical intercourse” — staring too
    intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex. This is also
    referred to as “making eye babies.” While the rule does not appear in
    written form, most students interviewed for this article were familiar
    with the concept.

    http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2008/06/25/optical-intercourse/

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Optical… for staring into someone’s eyes, which most people see as a romantic thing, not a purely sexual thing at all. (Not like they can be separated so easily anyway, and particularly not by someone who isn’t one of the participants.) What a bunch of filthy-minded creeps. 

  • Hexep

    I take consolation in the fact that the grosser their excesses become, the closer their subjects get to tearing down the whole edifice and building anew.

  • Matri

    It- They- Who- How-

    Whaaaaaa….? *boggles*

  • Kiba

    “optical intercourse” 
    What the ever living hell? 

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    Presumably it’s that “if you look at a woman lustfully you have already committed adultery with her in your heart” (Matt 5:28) thing that evangelicals takes so literally (which probably explains a lot about why they get all tied up in knots about sex).

    I actually read somewhere that the word translated lust also means covet and thus Jesus isn’t saying anything the Law didn’t (you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife). This makes a great deal of sense to me. If you look at lust as wanting to possess someone sexually then it becomes clear why it’s a vice and also means that healthy non-possessive sexual attraction =/= lust.

  • Kiba

    So…it’s about the look on your face when you are making eye contact? I really don’t understand this since I tend to stare “intently into the eyes of a member of the opposite sex” and same sex when I’m actively trying to listen to what someone is saying to me. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Riastlin-Lovecraft/100000678992705 Riastlin Lovecraft

    *Opens and closes mouth a few times like a fish caught in the headlights (I assume, never seen one)*

    Optical intercourse. Optical.
    ….It’s official, humanity as a race is lost. If you need me, I’ll be moving in with the Tau.

  • Carstonio

    At least one translation I’ve seen uses “possess” in that verse, and I had assumed that the culture defined intercourse as a man taking metaphorical possession of a woman. Fiction writers use “possess” in sexual contexts the same way, such as in Heinlein’s I Will Fear No Evil.

  • Carstonio

    I remember Fred saying many times that Christianity is far more than scripture. The mindset that he criticizes here treats scriptural fidelity as top priority for Christians.

  • Nathaniel

     You remind me of a great joke from the movie “Catch Me if You Can.”

    Knock knock.

    Who’s there?

    Go fuck yourself.

  • http://loosviews.livejournal.com BringTheNoise

     . And yes, this may create conflicts with the prevailing views in
    secular academies, partly because there is a different set of
    fundamental assumptions and partly because those prevailing views are
    sometimes driven by different impulses, political movements, and etc.

    But mostly because they deal in facts, and so much of the evangelical movement is determined to ignore them.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    Given that it just seems to mean looking I would assume they believe males and females can’t interact without lust.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    In many sectors, however, I found that … the professors in these departments were far more postmodernist in their view of the academy as a grounds for marshaling political change.

    Hi Tim. Could you give a specific example of this, because your example of the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ- which I believe you and Fred are in agreement about- makes me wonder if you and Fred are talking about different things when discussing academic institutions. Are you referring to what’s being taught in the classroom (ie the quality of education itself) or the political views and outside activities/influence of professional academics? How would the average undergraduate be affected by professors with this postmodern view? Academically? Philosophically? Politically? I ask because in my own experience (BU and NYU), the only time anything as overtly religious as belief in the resurrection even tangentially came up was in my religion classes (with the awesome Stephen Prothero). I couldn’t tell you the first thing about the religious convictions of any of my professors. And maybe I was just too young and naive to see it, but I don’t recall any classes being taught through or impaired by a postmodern lens. Outside of class, sure, religion and politics and half-baked philosophy were major topics of discussion among the students- I got to be the first Jew a few of them ever met and some of them were the first Republican friends I ever had- but it was students having these discussions with each other, not professors.

    The short version: is your point one of academics or atmosphere?

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Remember, while your brains are crashing from the words “Optical intercourse”, be sure to glance down a bit and take in the full horror of the nearby phrase “making eye babies”.

  • Water_Bear

    “Optical Intercourse” sounds like something technical virgins do, like a much scarier version of the ear sex joke.

  • Lori

    The military has a version of this, which they call “eye fucking” even though it’s not actually about sex. It’s when someone is looking a bit too long or hard at his/her commanding officer when they should be doing something else, namely carrying out an order. The thing about the military is that they’re very clear that, “Stop eye fucking me” is about control and part of inducing a very specific form of obedience. The folks in Pensacola are using policing of “optical intercourse” for the same reason, they just lie about it by saying that it’s about purity and sin.

    Maybe it’s just me, but if someone is going to expect me to ask how high when they say jump (good luck with that), I’d prefer that they were honest about it.

  • Carstonio

    I would have assumed that “optical intercourse” meant ogling certain body parts. That’s the same meaning I had assumed for “undressing with one’s eyes.” 

  • The_L1985

     Evangelicals are afraid because they’ve been taught to be afraid.  Some of them may suspect themselves to be  wrong, but other than snake-oil televangelists, most of them believe–and are deeply afraid of anything that brings up questions.

    They want their faith to be as unshakeable as a mountain, and know or fear that it isn’t.  They are terrified of questions, because they don’t want to leave Christianity and think that you can’t be a real Christian if you ask questions.

    This is why there are so many Forbidden Questions in the first place:  evangelicals are afraid.  They believe that everything that could cause the slightest bit of doubt is an existential threat, rather than an opportunity to learn.

  • The_L1985

    They’re trained not to notice the cognitive dissonance.  Think of pretty much every rank-and-file character from George Orwell’s novels:  Boxer the stallion, the Party members of Ingsoc.  They are trained not to question.  If you don’t question, then you don’t self-examine.  If you never self-examine, you don’t realize that you believe contradictory things.

  • Madhabmatics

     I think it’s much simpler than cognitive dissonance. People in rural communities are taught that academic stuff is beyond their reach and that they can’t really understand it, therefore anyone who talks to them in that fashion can huckster them with lies (because academics is beyond their grasp, they can’t tell lies from truth, etc). They are taught that they can’t trust THEMSELVES, that they are dumb and unqualified to understand their own faith, and only are able to keep it by letting the approved watchers “handle” criticisms for them.

    All of that kicks in before the questions even get asked.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    People in rural communities

    I grew up in a rural community. We have this “public education” thing in this country. There were maybe two people in my graduating class of 200+ who did not go on to at least community college. I’d stake the knowledge and critical thinking skills of any of them against a rich person from a big city any day.

    (Except that one girl who didn’t know London was in England. But actually, even without the knowledge base, I still think she was much smarter and more sensible than some rich brat who had everything handed to him on a silver platter — like Mitt Romney, say.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X