60 Second Summary: Why is Jerry Sandusky Guilty?

Articles you need to know about, summarized in 60 seconds (or less).

The Article: Why is Jerry Sandusky Guilty?

The Source: The Catholic World Report

The Author: Benjamin Wiker

The Gist: If Sandusky had lived in a pre-Christian era, he would not have been found guilty of anything.

The Excerpt:

This is 2012. Turn the historical clock back 2000 years, and find yourself in the pagan Roman Empire before Christianity arose, i.e., before the Christianization of the West. In Rome, as in ancient Greece, homosexuality was completely acceptable. To be more exact, homosexual activity was frowned on (but not very diligently) when it occurred between two free-born men, but it was cheerfully affirmed between a master and his slave, and even more, a man and a boy between the ripe ages of about 12 to 17—just the target age of Sandusky. The man generally presented himself as a kindly benefactor to the boy, taking him under his wing, so to speak, and (in return for sexual favors) helping him up the social ladder. Just like Sandusky.

If Sandusky would have lived 2000 years ago, he would not have been found guilty of anything. He would not even have been noticed. His actions would have been entirely unremarkable. There would have been no disgust, no anger. The verdict would have been innocent, and in fact, the notion that he was guilty of anything would have been unintelligible.

The Bottom Line: For 2,000 years, the influence of Christ has had a profound—yet underestimated—influence on all aspects of Western culture. We often take for granted that without the “salt and light” of Christianity, behaviors that we consider disgusting and taboo would be accepted and commonplace. But what will happen if the influence of Christ and his followers continues to wane? “Our society is being successively and successfully de-Christianized,” says Wiker. “The moral formation is wearing off rapidly. Now that we’ve answered the why of Sandusky’s guilt, we’ve got one more question to ask: How long will we continue to feel guilty?”

  • Jason Van Bemmel

    Great article that communicates a profound truth! I do find it a bit ironic that it comes from The Catholic World Report.

  • OFelixCulpa

    I don’t disagree with the idea that our basic moral framework is strongly influenced by Christianity, but Wiker’s argument is purely post hoc.

    • http://mathaytes.blogspot.com KG

      “Purely post hoc”?

      Although the article does not develop the support for its conclusion(and we should not expect it to given the length and format) a clear case can be made that the most significant historical factor in the changing mores of western society on these issues is the influence of Christianity. It may be an overstatement to suggest that this is the only factor, but it is clearly the most significant.

    • Dustin B

      agreed. Although I do think Christianity has had an undeniable mark on the moorings of society. I think this diminishes if not entirely dismisses any sort of morality prior to Christianity which on it’s face is presumptuous at best, and detrimentally ignorant worst.

  • Pingback: Combing the Net – 7/2/2012 « Honey and Locusts()

  • Daniella Lollie

    Wow this is ridiculous. First of all, people sleeping with boys became illegal due to changing views on homosexuality that had nothing to do with the idea of sexual assault. The advocacy of children, children’s rights and the rights of the maligned and exploited concerning sexual attacks came much much later in Western history.

    The idea that because Christianity is waning in some area (especially concerning alternative forms of sexuality) will somehow leave more room for defense of child rape is idiotic. Why? B/c the gap between consensual sex between two equal adults and sexual assault is a vast ocean and the two should NEVER be connected or aligned like this article has disgustingly done.

    You cannot attribute a change in social consciousness concerning sexual assault in the entire Western narrative to the development of Christianity, especially not without ample proof and rigorous study, especially when you consider the fact that nations in the history of the west are not homogenous, especially concerning the development of their rape laws.

    • mel

      Daniella you need to do some research on NAMBLA and their influence in the countries that are ahead of us on the accepting of the whole homosexual “life style”. You will not find extensive studies on the relationship because the sociological/psychological field is not illuminated by the light of the Holy Spirit. For one thing there are pedophiles in the research field that are publishing papers with the claim that young people are not traumatized by the “loving touch” of older men but by the Victorian attitudes of society. When you have people with absolutely no common sense when it comes to right and wrong; are becoming more and more depraved in their thinking so that children are victimized. Then you are not going to find “rigorous study” that will take responsibility for being depraved.

      Name one society that has survived victimizing their children.

      • Daniella Lollie

        What claim am I making that you are even arguing against? This article is concerning the influence of Christianity on the issue of sexual assault through out Western history. If you have no proof you have no proof. You cannot just make these claims and then come up with an idiotic defense like “well if there’s no evidence its because child rape sympathizers don’t write them.” The fact that some idiots and immoral researchers exist does not mean that this author’s claim about Christianity and rape is correct. Sorry.

        “Name one society that has survived victimizing their children.”
        ALL societies have victimized their children. Rape laws are still not satisfactory and rape culture permeates every aspect of society. Christianity as an institution is no different.

        Btw, I’m not saying that Christianity as a whole is completely void of connection with positive changes in attitude toward rape (although I can still provide ample proof that often Christianity has contributed to and perpetuated rape culture) , I am saying that the author’s claim is ludicrous because he has no proof for it and it simplifies Western history into a narrative not even fit for toddlers.

  • Daniella Lollie

    Sex with children is wrong for the exact same reasons that the rape of an adult is wrong. Unequal distribution of voice and power, violence against another human being, domination, silencing the voice of another, and using another’s body against their own will are all truths that people ignore in order to justify this horrible act. One does not need the illumination of the Holy Spirit to accept these arguments against the rape of children……

    Btw this article completely ignores the fact that Western history’s systematic rape of young girls and pre teens is something that definitely does not coincide with the history of the rape of young boys. Seriously? The reality of forced arranged marriages, horrible laws, and the refusal to acknowledge women as people whom should have equal rights civilly and socially are things that make history of rape of children whom are female unique in comparison to that of boys. Within this history Christianity for certain has had a less obvious positive role.

    • http://www.mecheup.com John T. Meche III

      “Unequal distribution of voice and power, violence against another human being, domination, silencing the voice of another, and using another’s body against their own will are all truths that people ignore in order to justify this horrible act. ”

      Why are any of these things intrinsically wrong from a scientific perspective?

    • mel

      NO you can provide proof that fakers and pretenders of the Christian faith have been rapist and filthy sinners that use the faith to take advantage of people. You cannot provide proof that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, has EVER advocated for the brutalization of any person in the form of emotional, physical or sexual abuse. That disgusting approach comes from sinful and selfish people.
      The bible is VERY CLEAR that when you harden your heart to any sin then it will overtake your life and those around you.

      What almost helped Jerry to get away with it and has helped famous producers to get away with rape? The culture of caring about ones entertainment more than the rape of a child. A culture that is takes pride in not being pulled down by Christianity.

      • Daniella Lollie

        Whoa whoa I was simply referring to Christianity as an institution and systematic complex historically (I should have made myself more clear).

      • vittoria-blue


  • Daniella Lollie

    They aren’t. Science cannot answer what is moral (for one it cannot even define morality, for instance if God’s existence were proven with science the question would still remain whether morality should be defined by what the creator of the universe wishes) , it only gives facts that can influence what we decide is ethical. Also, one does not have to care what the Creator thinks in order to use their God-given empathy to decide that they don’t want to live in a world where these things happen.

    • http://www.mecheup.com John T. Meche III

      So the belief that those things are wrong is ultimately an opinion?

      • Daniella Lollie

        I mean I guess. But that does not negate the suffering of people at the hands of others and it shouldn’t make my voice invalid. The definition of morality being “Whatever our God deems right” is only true for Christians. If someone is trying to alleviate suffering for the sake of it does that mean they are acting for the wrong reasons? I mean I always get asked these questions eventually because somehow admitting right and wrong is an opinion makes my arguments less valid. But saying your opinion is not an opinion because you believe God is on your side does not eliminate the fact that your opinion is an opinion by definition……

        Personally I am a lot less concerned with rightness and more concerned about the well being of others. I do not think people should suffer unnecessarily (decided what is necessary is where it gets tricky). To put it better, my definition of right and wrong has nothing do with with whether a higher power sanctions my actions. I would gladly suffer for trying to help others as that’s what the best people who’ve lived do anyways. It would just be a martyrdom of the cosmos wouldn’t it….but obviously I’d be seen as a fallen man who never saw the truth. I’m willing to risk that.

        I hope this admittance doesn’t make my opinion about this article any less valid? Hahaha I really think its wrong for historic and sociological reasons.

        • http://www.mecheup.com John T. Meche III

          I think you run into a problem though, because you have no way to justify that human suffering is a bad thing. Who cares whether a little girl dies a torturous death or lives to a ripe old age with the love of her life if she is merely a lump of atoms changing states? There seems to be no reason to do anything other than attain for yourself as much pleasurable nerve stimulation as possible until you die and really I can’t give you a good reason to even do that.

          Now, if man is inherently valuable, with that value bestowed upon him by a Creator, and that Creator has fashioned a way for the universe to function that will maximize human flourishing, then I can give you some reasons why humans shouldn’t suffer. And I can give you a reason to follow a set of commands.

          • Phil

            This line of argument drives me insane.

            Here’s what you take on Faith: God exists and has made Man inherently valuable.

            Here’s what I take on Faith: Man is inherently valuable.

            One isn’t any more rational than the other, and the end result is the same.

            • aaron

              your line of argument drives me insane, phil.. why do you take on faith that man is inherently valuable? what proof do you have to give us for this? define valuable? where did you get your standard of value from?

            • Burt

              You take what on faith? There is no causation for the value of man in your faith statement. Man is valuable because he is? THAT drives me insane. It opens the door for anyone to place any inherent value on man based on their value system or lack therof which brings us back to the whole point of the article in the first place. A belief in God (and Jesus) creates the base from which the value system flows. Without a foundation the whole thing crumbles into subjective beliefs of what is right and wrong which leads to chaos.

            • Phil

              Why? Because I believe it to be true.

              As to your other questions you have just as much “trouble” answering them as I do.

            • Phil


              You are saying, in effect, “God is valuable because he is.” By using God as causation, you aren’t gaining anything. (that is, you take that statement on faith)

            • Andy

              Phil, even parasites think man is inherently valuable. Hungry bears think humans are inherently valuable. Slave owners also thought humans were inherently valuable. The question is not whether humans are valuable, but how are we to treat valuable humans? Each society is capable of creating their own laws regarding how to treat a person. It just so happens that many of us find the principles in the Bible on how to treat people (mainly talking about the NT here, not unapplicable Mosaic laws) sane, logical, and superior.

            • Phil


              Actually, none of your examples are treating humans as inherently valuable, they are treating them as valuable towards an end. (And do you really want to bring up the slave example? I can think of no better example of NOT using Biblical morality–which clearly allows for some forms of slaver)

            • Phil


              I think I ultimately agree with you–that is, the question is how are we to treat valuable human beings? The Bible has a mixed record on this (at best). Even down to the present–with the current example being the opposition to loving same-sex relationships.

              I think we could have done better had we treated humans as inherently valuable. It just seems like a better ethic to me than trying to “divine” God’s will for ourselves (and others). God’s will seems like a way that more easily leads to mistakes (think jihad).

            • Andy


              Your point on slavery is a common one (that the Bible condones the type of slavery often associated with the USA), and rather than illustrating your point serves to show that people can use the Bible to justify whatever actions they wish. As I recall, the Ku Klux Klan and Hitler also used the Bible to further their goals, and we often read news stories about people who say “God told them” do do whatever it is they wanted to do.

              I would like to make two comments pertaining to the main debate – 1.) That you’re right, no one should be “divining” what God’s will is. Many people, Christians included, do what they want and say it was God’s will anyway. A responsible Christian, however, does not need to “divine” God’s will, because it’s written in the pages of scripture. Which leads to my second point…
              2.) The message of scripture is that mankind is valuable because God values them. From Genesis to Revelation, the entirety of the Bible is a message that God loves all mankind. God created mankind to show His love, he sent His son to die on mankind’s behalf. Christians derive our sense of mankind’s worth from God’s sense of mankind’s worth.

              That being said, you bring up two points which seem to contradict what I just wrote – slavery and Christian’s treatment of homosexuals.

              In the first case, I don’t have time or space to write you a dissertation, but the fact is that the slavery mentioned in the Bible is not at all like the slavery we think of in modern times. When we think of “slavery” it elicits emotional memories reminding us of the States’ abuses. However, the fact is that slavery was much different back then, with many people taking slavery upon themselves in order to earn money. It wasn’t forced, abusive labor. Also, the apostle Paul advocated people who were slaves becoming free.

              As for homosexuality, responses among the Christian community are mixed. To paint all Christianity with one sweeping generalization isn’t entirely fair. Many churches have ordained gay clergy, and many also marry homosexuals.

              As for those who are more ardently against homosexuality, I think there’s a lot of progress to be made. I, for one, question whether Christians should legistlate their morality on a country of free people. People’s morals are not changed by legislation, and whether one agrees with homosexuality as a lifestyle or not, I don’t think outlawing it will change the fabric of society. And as regards Christian’s treatment of gays, I believe in what got us started in this discussion – the inherent worth of ALL people. The pious, the sinner, the high and low, and the people Jesus liked to hang out with – the sinners and prostitutes.

              Thank you for the civil conversation, Phil.

            • Andy

              P.S. After I posted that, I was reminded of a poster I once saw that was trying to illustrate that all religions had the same “Golden Rule.” It had quotes from the holy scriptures of several religions, including Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Christianity. There were also several others.

              What struck me was that though the poster was trying to show their similarity, I noticed a difference. The Golden rule of most of the world religions (at least according to this poster) read, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” By contrast, Judaism and Christianity stated this not negatively, but positively. “Do to others what you would want them to do to you.”

              On the one hand, I see the former as saying something like, “If you don’t want someone smacking you across the head, don’t to it to others, fool!” The latter has a connotation that’s more proactive. Something like, “If you would like a nice cool lemonade on a hot day like today, go give one to someone else.”

              Most religions’ “Golden Rules” read like, “leave others alone,” the Christian and Jewish “Golden Rule” reads more like, “Be a blessing to others.”

              Just thought I’d add that to the discussion.

            • Phil


              First, thanks for the civil conversation as well. If I am brief below, it is to conserve time, not to be curt.

              About slavery: first, I am not talking about slavery in America. Rather,I am talking about slavery as Paul understood it. it’s undeniable that some forms of slavery existed at the time Paul was writing, including enslaving people as a result of conquest, among other things (including failing to pay debts). Paul makes no distinction between “good” slavery (as you allude to) and “bad” slavery (conquest, any involuntary slavery, etc)

            • Adam Hawkins

              I dont think the issue is what we take on faith. The issue is objectivity over subjectivity (relativism vs objectivity). If you say that human beings have value because “I think they do” you make an untenable claim. Morality; conceptions of right and wrong; and good and bad, ultimately must come from outside of one’s self. Otherwise they collapse under the weight of thier subjectivity. Maybe this illustration will help – If you say human beings are valuable becuase “I think they are” and I say human beings have no value. How do we settle the debate? Why should I believe you over me? We can argue about Man’s usefulness (which is done all the time and its is called utilitarianism); we can argue about what is inherent or what man deserves (but you run into trouble here if you argue from purely materialistic grounds because obviously all men dont agree, which means it isnt universal, which means it isnt inherent). What usually happens is that the materialist will ignore the question and democratize, or socialize their morally subjective opinion. This works fine as long as you are on the side of majority. All of the most influential “materialst” minds admit that there is no morality, that we are not unique or valuable. They realize that you cannot make the claim that actions or opinions are right or wrong, that lumps of atoms cannot claim to be any more unique or valuable (in themselves) than any other accidental lump of atoms. A materialist may only say, I dont like this or that, and if you dont either then lets make a law about it. Nietzsche, Russel, Huxley, Sartre, Camus, (and on and on) all disavow exactly what you claim. See Russel’s statement on Man: “…his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins… only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built.” In otherwords we must embrace the meaninglessness of the universe and our place in it.

              I appeal to capital T truth outside of myself for morality. I dont think humans are valuable because I say so. I belieive human beings are valuable because the creator of the universe says so. If someone tells me “I think human beings have no value,” I can say you are wrong. And they are wrong, but not because subjective opinions, but because the creator says so. Now there might be conflicting truth claims that draw from a transcendant source. Then one must decide which transcendant source is the best. In any event, the post modernist/relatavist is always defeated by their own relativism.

              In short, at least be honest and admit (as the greatest materialist thinkers have) that you have no basis, as a materiliast, in which to say human beings have inherent value. Either that, or appeal to a source outside of yourself.

            • Andy S

              Very well-put, Adam. I heartily agree.

            • Phil


              If I say people have value because “I think they do” you say that is an untenable claim.

              However, if you say God has value because “he simply does,” you are (in essence) saying that God has value “because I think he does.” That too, is “an untenable claim.”

              Just because you believe God to be an “objective” standard that exists in reality, thus providing us with a standard for morality, that doesn’t actually make it so. Indeed, you have no way of proving what you say is true.

              How do we settle the following debate: You say God exists and all value flows from that. I say God doesn’t exist. There is no way to demonstrate that you are correct and I am wrong. Ultimately, you have no more “basis” for your objective standard that I do.

              I can easily point to 2000 years of Christian history that show there is no “objective” moral standard that guides Christian actions. While I know you think you’ve got proper, moral, Christian behavior down right now (finally!–unlike most of those Christians who came before you), you have no way of demonstrating to me that that is true.

              Finally, “my basis to admit that human beings have inherent value” is just fine. I take it on faith.

          • Daniella Lollie

            Phil you run into the same problem. Why should I care what the Creator deems is right and wrong?

            “I think you run into a problem though, because you have no way to justify that human suffering is a bad thing. Who cares whether a little girl dies a torturous death or lives to a ripe old age with the love of her life if she is merely a lump of atoms changing states? ”

            To put it simply? I do. I place the value on individuals on my own accord. I care what happens to them and I know (because I have my own life) what it feels like to flourish and what it does to suffer. Whether my opinion is validated by a supreme power is irrelevant.

            Also there’s no reason to assume that stimulation of the nerves is the only conclusion you can come to if you do not believe in a supreme Creator or care what they deem moral. I place values on relationships, the idea of truth, being kind and respecting the existence of life. The consequence of suffering is in and of itself enough reason for me to want to do good by others and the benefits of flourishment and seeing others flourish is enough of a reward. Again I am not concerned with whether the universe agrees that suffering is a bad thing. I just know I don’t want it to happen because I know how it feels and what I don’t know I can imagine because I an capable of empathy.

            Burt, On morality needing a foundation in order to not be chaos, the problem still remains that you have no idea whether your foundation is right to begin with. The need for a foundation does not justify the which ever foundation you choose and believe in. I don’t see how a standard for the sake of a standard justifies choosing such a specific foundations over others. You are essentially just adding another link to the chain and not really critiquing my logic when it comes down to it.

            • mel

              No you don’t Daniella. You care about arguing against Christianity and you don’t care if children get hurt as long as you feel right in your argument.

            • Daniella Lollie

              Mel honestly you have no idea who I am or what I think. I argued nothing more than the fact that his claim that Christianity is DEFINITELY the reason we have different views on pedophilia is a bit ludicrous since he did not outline proof and Western history is just not that simple. I admitted that I don’t believe in your God but outlined what I think of child molesters and listed actual reasons for why I think it is wrong and horrible violence. I also just went on a long spiel about how I care about the well being of people simply because I choose to value their lives.

              Because I don’t share your faith and have LEGITIMATE criticism of the conclusion that was come to in this specific essay, I do not care about the well being of children even though I just argued in paragraphs about how I care more about the well being of children than whether a God exists or what they think… LOGICAL! Bravo. Seriously?

            • Phil


              I am not sure why you are talking about the Creator. I am stating that it is matter of faith (for me) that people have inherent worth, independent of any creator. Now, I can come up with reasons for why I believe this, but, at the end of the day, I accept it as a fact, even if there were no “good” reasons to believe it.

            • Daniella Lollie

              Oh then we agree. :)

            • Adam Hawkins

              “To put it simply? I do. I place the value on individuals on my own accord. I care what happens to them and I know (because I have my own life) what it feels like to flourish and what it does to suffer. Whether my opinion is validated by a supreme power is irrelevant.”

              I humbly state that I think you miss the point. Why should your accord matter over any one else’s? I know this is a bit philosophical, but what if I say that suffering is the reality and backdrop of the universe. Therefore, I think suffering is good for everyone. We can both draw on our own experience for our claims, but really our only appeal is to our opinions, albeit based on our experiene. What happens if you find yourself in a culture of folks who agree with me? How do you show them they are wrong? All you have to appeal to is your own experience, your own opinion, your own relative moral truth claims. My example may seem outlandish, but think of cultures with female circumcision, cultures who embrace torture, etc.

              It may not matter to you, but I dont want to just say, I dont like thier ways, I think we all know in our core, like you, that suffering is bad. The question is how that knowledge got there. I happen to believe the most reasonable answer is that God put it there, and I know that because of his scriptures.

              Hope this is helpful.

            • Daniella Lollie

              Adam like I said before your logic falls into the same problems as mine. There is no proof for your conclusion whats so ever so you rely on banking on the same truth that I do. The difference is when asked for what reason suffering shouldn’t happen and is “bad” I would say I don’t know but I’m going to act based on that belief anyways where as you claim to know the ultimate truth going off of the same amount of information and proof that I have.

              Just because you give an explanation doesn’t validate your understanding more than mine. There has to be evidence for that explanation as long as you are claiming your logic is less faulty than mine.

            • Daniella Lollie


              “What happens if you find yourself in a culture of folks who agree with me? How do you show them they are wrong?”

              Well thats the problem isn’t it. A worldview that does not pretend have the solutions to the problems it define is not a worldview that is inferior to one which claims it does. We try our best to make sure our way of thinking and definition of morality is the one accepted by those for our own agendas (ours being that suffering should be prevented). We have the ability to change culture and change minds to ultimately transform the world we live in. Just because there is no end all be all answer for all suffering all the time that I can give you that does not mean that path should go untraveled. Once again the only difference between you and me is that you accept the fact that you believe in words written down entirely on faith without any proof and I simply say “Idk”

  • http://127project.net David Morse

    Interesting point of view. I never quite thought of it in terms of Christianity’s impact that shapes the way our justice is today, but entirely right.

  • Pingback: A La Carte (7/3) by Tim Challies « rockvillecogop.com()

  • pa

    Excuse my incredulity but there are numerous ethical theories that would explain why and how Sandusky’s actions were morally wrong. I’m sure the OP and virtually all the readers of this blog would reply by asserting that all those theories are false (except for…the Christian one–wait, which Christian ethical theory?). However, conclusions are not arguments and that assertion would need substantial defense.

  • James S

    Excellent point by Andy. Something to think upon.
    Loving one another as we love ourself is impossible for mankind. Seeking to bless one another is the closest we can attain to it, because this is the reality of how we actually treat ourselves.
    Seeking to bless others in the same way we seek to bless ourselves in the everyday managing of our lives is a much higher and greater action than merely trying not to harm others.


    This is a christian blog, I didnt see anywhere on this blog where anyone was trying to make any person beleive in God, but there are alot of people trying to make the christian PROVE that God is. I dont believe in bigfoot but you dont see me on every bigfoot blog trying to prove there is no bigfoot, why? because i really dont believe in him. I dont spend all my free time trying to prove them all wrong. If you dont believe, fine, no prob nobody can make you and I dont see on this blog where they are trying, but one question I do have for you. Are you trying to prove to us that he is not real or are you trying to convince yourself that he is not real? I had a man tell me one time that even though you dont believe that red hot coal is hot will not make the pain any less when you pick it up. There are bad people in every walk of life, you cant blame every christian for what some hypocrites do. Jesus said that everyone that professes his name will not be of him, some will be false profits.

    • Daniella Lollie

      Because more often than not a belief in God does not exist in isolation. And very often hatred and bigotry and systems of dominance (ie. views on homosexuality and complementarianism) are defending using your faith without any facts or defense grounded on any provable reality. To get people to question the very core of everything they believe is the only way to get people to question their own hand in the world’s wrongs. If we aren’t ALL willing to question then actual progress (a world with less suffering, social inequality and maltreatment) can never be made. If there is ever inequality which I help uphold whose defense is as weak as “because this book says so” (much like the Coalition’s views on women’s roles) then I SHOULD be challenged and I SHOULD be criticized for upholding prejudice based on nothing than my own faith. I would be no different than every bigot who ever lived.

  • Pingback: What Jerry Sandusky’s Fall Teaches Us About the Christian Basis For Morality()

  • Pingback: Horror in Happy Valley, Part 2 |  KevinChilds.com()