Easy Chair Series

Political Sin; Cromwell; Documents and Future; Yankee Doodle; Montesquieu on Law; Indian Children; Educational Failure; Solutions to Pornography; Cambridge Apostles;

Microcephalic Babies

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Conversations, Panels and Sermons

Lesson: 2-91

Genre:

Track:

Dictation Name: EC125

Year: 1986

This is R. J. Rushdoony, Easy Chair number 125, July the ninth, 1986.

This evening I would like to discuss something that is, in part, an answer to a question one of you, Gene Neumann, asked about the implications of sin in the political sphere. I have touched on this before. I want to deal with it again. I want to discuss it in connection with a book written by historian Roger Howell, H O W E L L, entitled simply Cromwell. This book is out of print. It was published in 1977 and to my knowledge has not been reprinted.

There are better books on Cromwell. There are quite a number that have been written by very brilliant historians and I have read them and enjoyed them, some far more than this one. But this one is excellent because of a point that I am going to come to shortly.

One of the things we need to recognize as we approach Cromwell is that here was a man who was, by the circumstances of his time, forced into a role that he did not willingly take. There was a crisis in the nation. He seriously considered leaving England and coming to the colonies. However, little by little, his intelligence, his grasp of affairs, his speaking and acting brought him to the forefront of the struggle between Parliament and the king. The king, of course, was Charles I.

Charles was a thoroughgoing scoundrel. Such an opinion is not popular among historians, but the point is that not only was Charles I a man whose word could not be trusted because he believed himself to be above the law and above keeping truth, keeping his Word to any subordinate. On top of that he was a common thief. He seized the gold in the Tower of London which was held in trust for the London merchants and goldsmiths. This is one of his many acts of contempt for any of the properties and rights of others.

Cromwell at first had hopes that the king could be brought to reason, but by strong opposition, reasoning, by defeating the king when he went to war against his own people and by a number of other means, the king could be persuaded to live under the law, that he could be persuaded to be a man of integrity. That was Cromwell’s first great disillusion. The king could not be trusted.

The fact was that the king was a sinner. As a king he felt very much above and beyond the law. The kind of opinion he held was the expressed later by Louis XIV of France. Quoting from Absolutism and Enlightenment: 1660-1789 by R. W. Harris, this is what Louis XIV said.

“As the king is of rank superior to all other men, he sees things more perfectly than they do and he ought to trust rather to the inner light than to information which reaches him from outside. Occupying, so to speak, the place of God, we seem to be sharers of his knowledge as well as of his authority,” unquote.

Louis XIV’s opinion of himself was shared by other kings, no less by Charles I. Notice what Louis XIV said. A king is superior to all other men. Moreover that he sees things more perfectly than anyone else, so he should trust his own inner light than that of any of the wisdom or information given to him by anyone else. But he shares the knowledge of God as well as the authority of God. Very presumptive.

Well, Cromwell’s first great disillusionment was his hope that the king could be brought to reason, that he could be brought to common sense and rule as a godly king. Charles I was a sinner. As a sinner he had no desire to surrender his imagined prerogatives and to put himself under any law, any law of God or man.

Then, next, Cromwell found that as he turned to Parliament, the voice of the people, these failed him. The voices of the people as expressed in Parliament was one of confusion. And Parliament, then, was restricted in the kind of suffrage that existed. So it was what was described as the better sort of men who could vote and who were in Parliament. And Parliament proved to be notoriously petty. As a matter of fact, the people who should have been the most able in Parliament were the most unreasonable, the Presbyterian party. They wanted not the law of God, but the will of the Presbyterians and they did incalculable harm.

Earlier Archbishop Laud of the Church of England, the episcopal bishop had brought great harm by viewing England and his duty as archbishop only in terms of what he thought was best for the church and king. And now the Presbyterian party had the same approach. Crowell looked to the people, the people who were not represented. And, of course, we have more than a few historians abler than Mr. Howell who have erred greatly here in idealizing what the people were. One of these, of course, is the very remarkable and superior historian Christopher Hill. Having for some time been, more or less a Marxist, Christopher Hill was very prone to this error. As a result he felt that Cromwell’s failure was that he ceased to listen to the people. But the people, the common people, had all kinds of impossible demands, demands that could not even remotely be realized and if realized would have been disastrous. They were utopian and they were rationalistic. The radical wing of the Puritans—if they could even be called Puritans—was hardly given to common sense even though they sometimes unduly exalted reason.

Cromwell looked to the army. One of the most remarkable documents is Puritanism and Liberty edited by Woodhouse which is simply the transcript of the army debates, the men in the army debating from the standpoint of varying forms of Christian faith and varying forms of degrees of political faith, what was to be the future political settlement of England, a very remarkable document. But the army failed Cromwell also.

So, finally—to make a long and painful story short—Cromwell overthrew a great tyranny. In the process he had found that that tyrant, the king, could not be depended on. There was no hope in him. There was no hope in the people. There was no hope in Parliament and there was no hope in the army. And it meant, finally, that Cromwell—who was trying to look for a solution to the problems of the country—had to rule by himself. And then there was no one to pass the rule on to. This was a great tragedy.

This tells us a great deal, too, about our world. We have many people who idealize our American past and constitution which is not to say that I want to detract from either. But the point is no document can guarantee the future of man. If man is a sinner, the political implications of his sin will destroy any system of government, any constitution, anything that you can devise, because sin will level all things.

As a result, we need to learn by the Puritan commonwealth what happens. People were ready to work with Cromwell up to a point. Then they divided into two camps. Those who did nothing, figuring now that they had won, all of their problems were solved and it was up to Cromwell to do what needed to be done. The other side was full of greedy men, each out to realize their own dream, each out to force their idea of what constituted a true state upon the people of England.

Well Cromwell died. And not knowing what to do, they invited back the Stuart dynasty and Charles II took the throne, a reprobate, a man who very quickly was the puppet of Louis XIV and secretly in the pay of Louis XIV, a traitor to his own country selling out his interests at every turn. Under Cromwell England had been a tremendous world power. Under Charles II it sank to a shameful and pitiable estate. Charles II was more interested in being subsidized to have his freedom to sin at will than to do anything constructive to alleviate the problems of the kingdom.

However, Cromwell’s years were not in vain. What happened was this. Cromwell had destroyed the divine right of kings. He had destroyed autocracy. He had destroyed an oppressive order. And, as a result, it was impossible for Charles II—had he so desired—to go back to the regime of his father. The result, in time, was in 28 years the Glorious Revolution of 1688. It meant that Parliament came through, not that it ruled well, but it mean that there was some progress, that the old order was gone, that England was changing. No one gave Cromwell the credit, but by his destruction of the old order, he prepared the way for something else in England.

What he did did not die there. I believe a very good case can be made for seeing the American War of Independence as a continuation of the Puritan Commonwealth and of the United States as, in a sense, realizing some of the hopes of Cromwell to a degree. But, of course, we are destroying those beginnings.

One interesting sidelight on all of this is a song, a contemptuous song that was used to describe Cromwell. It was a song that had come from a nonsense song sung by Dutch farmers when they were harvesting and it began with the words, “Yanker Doodle, doodle down.” Much later when the civil war broke out in England in 1642 the Royalists who were called Cavaliers were very much given to rather flamboyant and dashing clothes whereas they called the party of Parliament, the Puritans Roundheads because of their short closely cropped hair and their plain clothing. They also poked fun at Oliver Cromwell.

Cromwell came from the minor gentry and they ridiculed him as being pretentious, which he was not, and as trying to pass as a Cavalier, which he never did, by singing a new version of the “Yanker Doodle, doodle down” song that began like this.

Yankee Doodle came to town upon a Kentish pony,

He stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.

The word “macaroni” had reference to the Cavaliers’ Italian style clothing and its flamboyance. And their idea was that Cromwell would like to be a Cavalier in appearance, but never would be. Well, of course, Cromwell never sought to be that.

Now this song had an interesting revival some years later. When the French and Indian War broke out in the colonies, a British army surgeon who was stationed in New York thought the shabbily dressed colonial troops who were fighting alongside the British were quite ridiculous. They idea that they thought of themselves as soldiers, as men who could fight alongside of the British amused him. And so he wrote a song to ridicule them and he took the anti-Cromwell song...

Yankee Doodle came to town upon a Kentish pony,

And stuck a feather in his cap and called it macaroni.

...and applied it to the colonial troops. And the British soldiers loved it.

The interesting thing is, in action the colonials were the better soldiers by far. They were used to fighting on American soil, fighting Indians and hiding behind trees and getting out of the way of the enemy’s gunfire. The British troops were used to marching in red coats all in a line. And, naturally, the Indians had no trouble mowing them down.

Incidentally, that is how Washington distinguished himself in the French and Indian War because he simply adapted the Indian style warfare to the troops he commanded. The British officers regarded such maneuvers as cowardly, as disgusting and shameful for a gentleman to adopt. There was no question they worked.

Incidentally, the French and Indian War did not help British and American relationships, because the British troops were all contemptuous of Puritanism and they despised all the Americans, north and south, as Puritans. They ridiculed them. They were continually trying to debauch the American girls. And the result was there was a great deal of resentment towards British troops. This paved the way for the War of Independence. There was a sentiment among a great many because there were demonstrations against the British before the French and Indian War was over and there were acts of violence between the British and the Americans.

Well with the War of Independence, the British again used this to ridicule the colonials, but the colonials in April of 1775 made Yankee Doodle their fight song and the result was it became immensely popular. It deserves more of a place in American history, American singing than it has ever gained. Before the war was over it was their favorite song, the colonials’ favorite song.

When the fighting ended in October of 1781 with the British surrender at Yorktown the American troops lined up in two columns, on the one side their French allies, on the other the Americans and the British had to march between them. And General Lafayette who knew what had been going on ordered the band to play Yankee Doodle. This infuriated the British.

Quite an interesting story, that there was more of Cromwell in the American War of Independence than historians generally write about, a very important aspect of our history.

Well, on to something else now. I referred to R. W. Harris Absolutism and Enlightenment: 1660-1789, a very interesting book published in 1964, a great deal in it that I would rather not go into now. Perhaps on some other occasion I would like to use it.

But I would like to refer to one citation by Dr. Harris from Montesquieu. Montesquieu said, and I quote, “Law in general is human reason,” unquote. “Law in general is human reason.” A very interesting and very important statement, because this has implications for the subject that I spoke of earlier that Gene Neumann asked me to talk about, implications of sin in the political sphere.

If you see reason as somehow above and beyond man’s sin and the logic of human reason producing or expressing law, you are in trouble, because what you have said is that law is what fallen man devises and law then becomes what it has become in our day.

The humanistic philosophers of law have been mainly two schools in the modern era, those who have said that law is the expression of logic following Montesquieu, that the human mind, as it comes to a logical conclusion, comes to an awareness of fundamental law and it is reason that formulates and expresses law. Then with John Dewey, of course, law became experience. In either case what happened was that humanistic men took an aspect of man, a fallen creature, and said that law was derived from that sphere.

Well, what happens then is that sin is enthroned and becomes the law of the day. We see this very clearly today in every country including right here in our country. Law is the expression today of the sin that is in Congress and in the Supreme Court. They are giving an expression to their sin. Whether they call the law logic or experience, the end result is the same. Sin has triumphed and the net result is that our society precisely as it seeks to improve itself through the law making bodies goes downhill more and more, becomes less and less capable of coming to grips with reality or solving anything. And the crisis of our time is a manufactured crisis by the elements that are supposed to produce law, that are supposed to serve the law.

Most people have—without understanding the issues I have just described—sensed this to some degree because what you find all around is a growing suspicion of politicians, a growing suspicion of lawyers so that you can hear all kinds of jokes and ugly comments about lawyers. And, of course, the same is very true of judges. I have heard people say that, by the way, that all judges should be shot and this statement in anger as they read the papers.

Well, these people, without going into the reasoning behind the law, have instinctively recognized that the very agencies that should be serving law are the most anarchistic with respect to the law and the results are deadly for our society. They are destructive of everything in our history and they are leading us steadily into a growing degeneracy and decadence.

{?} has defined decadence as: the inability of a people to defend themselves. And increasingly we and other countries are losing the ability to defend ourselves. We have become decadent. Now the roots of this are in our political sphere, in the law making sphere, because we have ceased to move in terms of God’s law and we are seeing human reason as the source of law and the lawmaker as somehow rising above everything that man the sinner, fallen man is in his capacity as a man who expresses law as either the reason inherent in man or the logic and experience of the past.

Now to continue. Not too long ago I discussed briefly, much to briefly, a book by Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980, published in 1984 by Basic Books and, I believe, still in print. Now the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC has put out a little paperback Gaining Ground: New Approaches to Poverty and Dependency with a portion of Murray’s book and essays by Robert Royal, Glen C. Lowery, Michael Novak and Peter L. Berger. This little book is obtainable from Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1030 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005. And the price I am not sure of, but, yes, four dollars.

Now one of the things that I would like to cite again from Murray’s book before going on to this book is a statement he made therein as he dealt with the education of the disadvantages, of minority groups in this country. He made a very important point that I think is essential for us to know because in this day of so many spoiled children, it applies not only to disadvantaged students, but to everyone. Let me quote Murray.

“The central failing is that the system does not teach disadvantaged students who see permanent failure all around them how to fail. For students who are growing up expecting whatever their dreams may be ultimately to be a failure, with failure written large, the first essential contravening lesson is that failure can come in small digestible packages. Failure can be dealt with. It can be absorbed, analyzed and converted to an asset,” unquote.

This is a very important point. Today we don't even give failing grades because we don't like to see people fail under any circumstances. One of the things I learned very, very quickly years ago when I was on an Indian reservation was that there was a reason why the Indians by the time they were in their teens, if not earlier, were alcoholics. It was their child training. You never heard an Indian child cry or an Indian baby cry. In the eight and a half years I was among them I never heard a baby cry.

Well, that is unusual. I would preach at the mission with a great number of babies in the congregation. I never heard one cry. The reason was simply this. Whenever a baby showed any sign of displeasure the baby was immediately given the breast by the mother and rocked and held so that it never had to cry. When the child became a toddler, again, he was never frustrated. The Indians loved their children greatly, but with a kind of love that was, ultimately, destructive. If an Indian child of five or six wanted to get into a game with children of eight, nine or 10, he was allowed to play with them. Of course, not being up to their performance, it quickly ended the game, but nobody seemed to mind. No one objected because it was unthinkable of them, it was heartless, it was cruel to deprive a child.

Well, the net result of all of this was that the minute these children began to get a little older, as they approached their teens and as they found that life can be frustrating, they couldn’t take it. They became alcoholics very quickly. They had to find refuge in a dream world and, of course, later one with peyote, a drug which was take religiously.

Well, this is what we are seeing in our culture today. After the war I had a meeting in New York with some graduate students. I believe it was about the year the war ended and I went into this and I said, “It is this type of training that has destroyed the Indians and if we get it here in this country, this same kind of indulgence towards children, it will destroy our country.”

Well, of course, the Depression children decided to become indulgent parents. They didn’t want their children to be deprived the way that they had been deprived. And the result was we created a generation, more than one generation that cannot be frustrated. And because the world is frustrating they have gone into liquor, they have gone into pot, they have gone into heroine, they have gone into opium, they have gone into LSD, they have gone into the sexual revolution. Every kid of trick imaginable they are taking because they cannot take a world of frustration. They cannot face reality.

So we have a problem today and it is going to go away either on the Indian reservation where the problem still continues or in our culture at large. On the Indian reservation the reservation where I was today they have the highest rate of suicide in the United States. We are getting youth suicide increasingly all across the country because they cannot take the simple frustrations.

So Murray’s point is excellent, not only for the disadvantaged or the minority groups but for all. We need an education that enables people to learn how to fail and to realize that failure can be absorbed, analyzed and converted into an asset.

Now to turn to something by one of the commentators on Murray’s book in Gaining Ground. I would like to quote from Glen C. Lowery. The Quandary of the Black Community is the title of his essay, and I quote.

“As Orlando Patterson has brilliantly argued, fault and responsibility must not be presumed to go hand in hand. It is absolutely vital that blacks distinguish between the fault which may be attributed to racism as the cause of the black condition and the responsibility for relieving that condition, for no people can be genuinely free so long as they look to others for their deliverance,” unquote.

Let me repeat that sentence. “For no people can be genuinely free so long as they look to others for their deliverance,” and excellent statement.

Then, very briefly, to a book edited by Carol A. Clancy, Pornography: Solutions Through Law put out by the National Forum Foundation for 14.95 and the address is 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Number 220, Washington, DC, 20002. It is a small paper back of 150 pages approximately, but there are some excellent things in it. The writers, I think, are predominantly Catholic and I think this adds in many cases to the value of the book. They are not all Catholic because, for example, Jerry Comvey from Liberty Baptist College writes on pornography and public morality and has some excellent things to say. For example, his point that tradition without truth is not enough is a very good point.

There is an interesting point made by another writer, one which, I think, really is an overstatement, but nonetheless historically has more than a germ of truth. It is from a keynote address by Senator Jeremiah A. Denton at the conference, because these papers are all conference papers. Quoting the Senator.

He says, “You cannot talk with Father Ritter, founder of Covenant House for Abused and Runaway Youth, (an excellent agency, by the way) about what is going on in New York without knowing that something has gone wrong in society. Civilization equals family plus agriculture. We are destroying the family in the entire western world,” unquote.

Now that statement is a very important one. Civilization equals family plus agriculture and we are destroying the family and the entire western world. We could add that we are also destroying agriculture. Life without a good supply of food rapidly means the destruction of civilization. You cannot maintain a civilized society if your food supply is marginal. You cannot maintain a civilized society without a strong family. Historically people recognized that these two things went together, that they were the essentials of civilization, family plus agriculture. But today we have forgotten this. We have lost our roots and we think in terms of nonsense.

Not too long ago I was in a state for a conference, a state that has a most distinguished history. It also has a number of major cities, industrial centers in the past. The biggest city in that state has dropped from a million since 1960 to 1980 to half a million. It is expected in another 10 years to drop another 50 percent. It is an old city, a beautiful city, a city of magnificent old churches and empty factories.

What is the problem? Well, the state is so heavily populated now with urban peoples with all kinds of environmental ideas, anti pollution ideas which are beyond common sense that they have shut down industry. Industry cannot come into the state. In some instances, because factories stand empty, businesses from other states have thought of moving in because the properties have become so cheap. Very quickly they decide otherwise when they encounter the militant hostility of these peoples to any kind of industrial development, not even clean industry. Everything is beneath them.

At the same time, how are they trying to revive their major city which has dropped from a million to almost half a million? Why they are having all kinds of cultural events to make it again a world center. They had a film festival about the time I was there. They have head some foreign ballet and other groups, symphonic groups and so on as though people are going to move into a major city just for these so-called cultural events where there is no income that could be made.

This is the kind of insanity that prevails today all over the world. But the point is well taken by the Senator. Family plus agriculture, this is the essence, this is the skeleton upon which a civilization flourishes. Take it away and it collapses.

Man shall not live by bread alone, but he can’t live without bread. And today all over the world agriculture is in the process of destruction.

Now on to something else, a new book. Hardly pleasant reading, but all the same important reading. It is by Richard Deacon as in a church deacon, but it is emphatically what deacon is not. He is a leading writer in the field of espionage and diplomacy. He is a British writer. This book just published, 1985 in England and 1986 in the United States, at 19.95 from Ferrar, Strauss and Giroux in New York. It is entitled The Cambridge Apostles: The History of Cambridge University’s Elite Intellectual Secret Society.

Well, this is exactly what it was, a secret society which began as a Church of England group and before too many years became a society of sodomites who expounded what they called the higher sodomy. So these men became Soviet agents within the British government. Others became very, very powerful within the British government. They were, of course, very quickly not only no longer interested in the Church of England, but were also militantly anti Christian. They read papers regularly. They were the ones to espouse the idea that homosexuality between consenting adults is legal or should be legal. The papers they read to one another often had to do with preposterous subjects. And a G. E. Moore who is regarded as one of the great English philosophers was a member and he was not a great philosopher. And in one of his papers he made this statement. I quote.

“In the beginning was matter and matter begat the devil and the devil begat God,” unquote.

Bertrand Russell was a member of this society. Lichtenstein, of course, a very powerful member was Keynes whose economic is still with us and destroying the world.

Their way of life, of course, was to them a highly noble one.

Incidentally, another group was formed to provide, I guess, a kind of female counterpart, the Aphra Behn Society which was named after Mrs. Aphra Behn, a 16th century play write. Aphra Behn, by the way, in herself is quite a remarkable story. We don’t really know too much about there. She wrote some very bawdy plays in the 16th century. She did serve as a spy for at least two countries. She may have come to the Americas. She knew something about it. She wrote about the noble savage very glowingly and justified even their cannibalism. They were innocent children of nature. So a great deal that when into Rousseau and that tradition came from Aphra Behn.

Well, apparently Aphra Behn had lesbian tendencies that historians haven’t bothered to deal with. At any rate, an Aphra Behn society was also formed at Cambridge.

The interesting thing, of course, is these members of the apostles or the higher sodomy group have always preferred to exercise power and authority behind the scenes in the civil service, in the diplomatic service or advisory or experimental agencies rather than to take a public part in government. They have loved the behind the scenes influence.

Incidentally, one of their more important members was Edward Marsh who very early became a secretary, a private secretary and right hand man to Winston Churchill and, as such, exercised a very, very powerful influence there.

One of the early and ostensibly a member during the period of orthodoxy was Hort, H O R T, Fenton John Anthony Hort. But there is a good question as to whether in Hort’s day the society was as innocent as Deacon seems to believe because Hort was the man who did most of the work in the preparation of the Westcott and Hort version of the Greek New Testament which supplanted the Received Text with scholars. There is no question that Hort was a hater of everything that was orthodox, a hatred that extended to the received text so that, perhaps even in the early years, behind the façade of Church of England orthodoxy, the society was not what it pretended to be.

Let me add that Deacon is not writing critically of the apostles. He goes so far as to say in his conclusion that, “The outside world, the influence of members, has over the past 40 years been more significant in science, medicine, economics and technology than in any other fields. Membership of the society may well have encouraged feelings of elitism in some and, what is worse, privilege, elitism. Some apostles. Some apostles such as Harry Johnson have acknowledged this. As we all suffer from ill effects of counter elitism in its worst forms today, I should be the last to attack any –ism while still condemning privileged elitism. But in the long run, as I hope this book will prove, the cut and thrust of debate and arguments of such societies as the apostles have in very many instances paved the way to better things and justified their existence. So, if as an outsider, one may raise one’s glass to the apostles and may they long continue.”

So much for Deacon’s perspective which, indeed, I assure you, is hardly mine.

Well, very briefly to a book published just this year by Good Books in Intercourse, Pennsylvania. Grace H. Kaiser, K A I S E R, Dr. Brown. Grace Kaiser is an MD who practiced medicine in New Holland, a town in eastern Lancaster County in Pennsylvania for 28 years. She just retired. Her practice as predominantly among the Mennonites and the Amish and she writes in a kindly way about them as she describes their foibles and their traits. It is a lightweight book, but very pleasant reading.

However, even though Mrs. Kaiser or Dr. Kaiser is apparently a church member, her perspective is not Christian, because the difference between her and the Amish is very clear. She did deliver many microcephalic children among the Amish. These usually died in a year or so living sometimes a little beyond that. These were a product of considerable inbreeding among the Amish. In fact, one of her problems was that so many of them had similar names even to having the same middle name as well as the first and last name that finding out who was having a baby was, at times, difficult.

But as she delivers one microcephalic child and then is present when the child dies she sees this as a tragedy and I am afraid most of us would feel the same way. But she is honest in presenting the perspective of these people. They do not see it as such. In fact, “As this one microcephalic baby died, they watched me,” she writes, “examine the lifeless form on Anna Marie’s lap. There were no breath sounds, but the heart continued to beat strongly several minutes before hesitating in a complete silence. When the chest became noiseless I folded the blanket gently over the baby’s body and nodded to those who shared the watch, the blessing he could go. Now he will finally have peace. He is in a better place. God was good to us.

“‘Thank you for not doing anything to give him pain or make him last longer,’ grandfather Fisher said in a subdued voice.

“As I closed the kitchen door softly behind me, Anna Marie still sat with the baby across her knees. Levi sat beside her. I would call Al Furman the funeral director from my phone at home. The family would have another hour with their baby before the world of reality intruded on them. Tomorrow or the next day family and neighbors would gather around a small grave.

“With sadness I felt that this would not be the last such infant Anna Marie would rock on her shoulder,” unquote.

What she failed to see that these people love every child and they knew with an absolute certainly these children would, like all the rest, be with them in heaven.

I read a book once about the Hutterites in the Dakotas and their attitude is the same.

Well, our time is over. Thank you and God bless you all.