Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The news media is full of reports about a church shooting in Tennessee, but it should be noted it took place in a Unitarian Universalist church which, like most UU churches, was really just a place for religious humanists. MSNBC reports on the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church:
The gunman's motive is not yet known. The church, like many other Unitarian Universalist churches, promotes progressive social work, such as desegregation and fighting for the rights of women and gays. The Knoxville congregation has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.Kemper said the gunman shouted before he opened fire.
"It was hateful words. He was saying hateful things," she said, but refused to elaborate.
The man arrested is 58-year old Jim Adkisson. And now new details are emerging that suggest possible motives. A local TV station reports:
A neighbor told 10News Adkisson described himself as a "Confederate" and a "believer in the old South." She says Adkisson self-identified in this way to her on more than one occasion, but that she didn't know what he meant by it.
It will be interesting to see if more information corroborates that. I don't want to place this firmly inside a simple narrative so soon, but it sounds as though we may have a neo-confederate who decided to get back at those liberal queers he hates so much. Time will tell if that conclusion is justified. At least two people died in the attack and many more were wounded.
Politics
Comments
A close friend of mine was there as it happened, present only to watch a friend's daughter perform in the play. She didn't hear the man said anything at all but given the confusion might have missed it. She is, fortunately, unharmed, but the father of friend will lose the vision in his right eye. It sounds like the situation could be much worse.
-TTm
Posted by: Ticktockman | July 28, 2008 9:36 AM
There are also reports from a neighbor that the man was anti-Christian, which would make his selection of a UU congregation absurd. I'm curious to find out what really happened.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 9:57 AM
I wondered this, too, but it seems Adkisson's motive was less than coherent:
Posted by: Bartholomew | July 28, 2008 9:59 AM
OK, but why pick a Unitarian church if that's the case? It would make much more sense if you thought like that to go after a fundamentalist church of some stripe.
Posted by: Skwee | July 28, 2008 10:08 AM
My guess (which is totally unfounded, by the way) is that Karen Massey heard that this guy shot up a church (unaware of what a UU "church" meant), and then adapted a story to feed into an already existing Christian persecution narrative. Otherwise, out of the hundreds of churches in the Knoxville area, why would he have picked a UU congregation?
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 10:13 AM
Why did he target a UU church? Quite possibly he didn't know the difference. Perhaps, for him, a church is a church is a church?
Posted by: bbstucco | July 28, 2008 10:14 AM
I'm watching the press conference now...he was angry at "the liberals", hated the "liberal movement", because they were taking his jobs, and he had recently had his food stamps denied or reduced. They will be prosecuting him for two counts of murder and probably federal civil rights violations.
Seriously, fuck this guy.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 10:20 AM
He may have targeted a UU church because he simply didn't have the courage to attack any of the much more abusive and intolerant churches that had actually caused his suffering (if, in fact, that is the case). Or the "Christians" who abused him when he was younger had managed to condition him to hate "liberals" to the point where he would take out all his anger on said "liberals" no matter who was really at fault for his suffering.
Given the info in this post, he's just another person who got unjustly abused when he was weak, and became, in turn, an unjust abuser of other people who seemed weak in his eyes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 28, 2008 10:26 AM
I want to elaborate on my previous post...there was a handwritten letter found at his apartment that detailed how upset he was at the liberals and the liberal movement, he had recently lost his job and couldn't find another, and he had recently had his food stamps revoked. He targetted the UU church specifically because it was a progressive congregation. There was absolutely no hint of anti-Christian sentiment in his writings or his interveiw, at least according to the press conference. This was meant as a strike against the "liberal movement". You know, the people who work hard to get him those food stamps he lost and to improve the standard of living for those who have a hard time getting employment, the congregation that helps the indigent and the hungry...yeah, when he lost his job and food stamps, he went after them because they help queers too.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 10:39 AM
I'm not sure there's much to be gained by analyzing the motives of crazy people.
Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2008 10:56 AM
The police were saying he wasn't crazy...but then again, they'd probably be saying that even if he was, to better ensure a conviction. I guess we'll see if he was certifiable or just evil.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 10:58 AM
Question is, how long before we get blamed by the christian right?
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 28, 2008 11:14 AM
Yup. I can't wait to see the distortions that WingNutDaily and OneNewsNow are going to put on this. My guess is that the completely leave out the fact that it was a humanist church and the evidence that the guy hated liberals, and instead focus exclusively on the hearsay from his neighbor that he was "anti-Christian".
Posted by: Wes | July 28, 2008 11:24 AM
Taz is right.
Don't look for this lunatic's views to make coherent sense.
Posted by: Siamang | July 28, 2008 11:33 AM
Well, the comments left on the Nashville Tennessean's website show a certain amount of uncertainty over whether to deplore the shooting unequivocally or to deplore it but point out that Unitarians aren't really Christians, so .... With the stray comment that those commie pinkos got what they deserved. I don't think the fundamentalists are going to ignore the UU element in the story.
Posted by: nm | July 28, 2008 11:42 AM
Ed,
I'm shocked by your opening sentence. Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church is no less a community than any other church that has been attacked just because they are religious humanists or of a liberal faith. You seem to be somehow writing them off. Shame on you.
--[Lance Brown]
UU Congregation of Hillsborough, NC
Posted by: Lance Brown | July 28, 2008 12:18 PM
Get a grip, Lance. Ed was pointing out that this wasn't a case of anti-Christian violence (which might be missed if one just read the headline about a "church shooting") and later ties it into reports of the man's neo-Confederate leanings and crusade against the "liberal queers". He wasn't belittling the UU community, and I say this as someone affiliated with my local UU fellowship.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 12:24 PM
Lance Brown-
I am mystified by why you think what I wrote was "writing off" this church. I merely pointed out that this was not a typical Christian church at all, it was a UU church. UU churches are generally populated by humanists rather than orthodox Christians. That's not writing them off at all - to me, that's a very good thing that puts them far above the typical church. I pointed that out because it might suggest a different motive than one might find in other church shootings, and indeed that is looking more and more the case.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 12:34 PM
I'm a UU and believe in God, and the love of Jesus, as do many UUs. UU is not an atheist faith, although there may be people whose beliefs are influenced by atheism, humanism, Hinduism, and Islam in the congregation, it is simply non-dogmatic. They're called Unitarians because they originally rejected the Trinity, Universalist because they believed in the universality - not exclusivity - of God.
This is important, not because of who is or is not UU, but because the community embodies the love and tolerance one can find at the heart of much religious and philosophical wisdom, regardless of the detail of belief. The love that goes beyond sect or prejudice. In fact the love that Jesus spoke of. I doubt he would recognize his teachings in many so-called Christian churches, but I suspect he would identify with their practice - by fighting discrimination, injustice, intolerance - among the UUs.
UUs have been persecuted and martyred for centuries and this attack is entirely consistent with that pattern. UUs may not call themselves Christian. But in their practice, rather than their posture, I believe they are true followers of Christ.
Posted by: John Varney | July 28, 2008 1:04 PM
I'm a UU and believe in God, and the love of Jesus, as do many UUs. UU is not an atheist faith, although there may be people whose beliefs are influenced by atheism, humanism, Hinduism, and Islam in the congregation, it is simply non-dogmatic. They're called Unitarians because they originally rejected the Trinity, Universalist because they believed in the universality - not exclusivity - of God.
This is important, not because of who is or is not UU, but because the community embodies the love and tolerance one can find at the heart of much religious and philosophical wisdom, regardless of the detail of belief. The love that goes beyond sect or prejudice. In fact the love that Jesus spoke of. I doubt he would recognize his teachings in many so-called Christian churches, but I suspect he would identify with their practice - by fighting discrimination, injustice, intolerance - among the UUs.
UUs have been persecuted and martyred for centuries and this attack is entirely consistent with that pattern. UUs may not call themselves Christian. But in their practice, rather than their posture, I believe they are true followers of Christ.
Posted by: John Varney | July 28, 2008 1:06 PM
The only thing I would add to John Varney's comment is that the nature of UU churches varies a good deal from one church to the next. Some of them are nearly all atheists and agnostics, while others are made up primarily of liberal Christians. What they generally share is a basic humanist outlook on life, some religious humanist and some secular humanist, but all focused on the importance of service to others and fighting against injustice. That's why I like UU churches so much.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 28, 2008 1:20 PM
As a born-and-raised Unitarian (of the atheist/humanist variety), I can understand why Adkisson targeted the Knoxville UU church for his murderous rampage, since UUs are overwhelmingly liberal and welcoming of gays and lesbians. Adkisson obviously knew this. It's also worth mentioning that he didn't shoot up the next-door Presbyterian church, which is also generally liberal and gay-friendly, although Presbyterians are still battling over gay and lesbian clergy, who must stay in the closet (I personally know several). But UU churches are well-known for open doors; I'm guessing that the "Gays Welcome" sign outside the Knoxville church is what prompted Adkisson to pick it as his target. Also, there's nothing in what he said or wrote to indicate that he is an atheist.
Posted by: peter irons | July 28, 2008 1:24 PM
Ed,
I see what you are saying now. I'm a bit wigged out. I used to live in Knoxville and visited TVUUC while looking for a church home there. This is the closest I've ever been to such violence in my life, and reacted poorly to the wording you chose.
Peace,
--[Lance]
Posted by: Lance Brown | July 28, 2008 1:33 PM
I can well recall lesbian couples in the congregation at Steve Fritchman's First Unitarian Church in Los Angeles back in the 1950s (before the union with the Universalists). Especially for its time it was extraordinarily liberal; the congregation probably included some FBI informants as well.
Posted by: Crawford Kilian | July 28, 2008 1:35 PM
Hmmmm. A nut in his early 60's/late 50's (making him someone who was raised in a segregationist South) who loves the Confederacy and hates the *liberal* churches that preached equality (and were, I bet, responsible, in his mind, for the demise of the segregationist South). Lost his job and blames *liberals* (conservative white males who lose a job often blame that loss on affirmative action; I have heard the claim that "they took my job and gave it to an unqualified n****r" often enough). I would hazard an educated guess (and that is all it is at this time) that race (specifically 'race traitors') has something to do with his lunacy and anger.
Posted by: Howard Hershey | July 28, 2008 2:04 PM
A question I had that I thought would be a propos for this blog: Does this attack fall under the legal definition of terrorism? It was directed against liberals, presumably with the goal of punishing liberals for their...liberalness. Could this guy be prosecuted for domestic terrorism?
"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or its territories without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."--FBI
Posted by: Shygetz | July 28, 2008 2:24 PM
There's certainly more to be gained by doing so than by writing off everyone who does something shocking as "crazy" and making no attempt whatsoever to "know your enemy."
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 28, 2008 2:39 PM
"The liberabble and gheys made me do it..."
Posted by: a knight | July 28, 2008 2:42 PM
The Limbaugh-Hannity-Oreilly message got through to this guy, loud and clear.
Posted by: Pensy | July 28, 2008 3:40 PM
Another piece to the puzzle, Adkisson's ex-wife is a former long-time member of the church. She left him eight years ago, after an incident where he held a gun to her head.
Lets see, it's a gay friendly church. Presumably they support gay marriage. Adkisson heterosexual marriage fell apart. I wonder which idiot will be the first to say that gay marriage is to blame for all this.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 28, 2008 4:33 PM
"He always had the attitude the government was trying to get him,'' Smallwood said. "He disliked blacks, gays, anyone who was a different color or just different from him."
-----
I'm currently reading about a book called Albion's Seed which details Appalachian thought, and this, for the most part fits the books thesis. It can be summed up easily - they don't like other people.
Posted by: Ben Roethlisberger | July 28, 2008 5:14 PM
Quote of the Day, "Con Air"
Baby O: What's wrong with him?
Cameron Poe: My first guess would be... a lot.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | July 28, 2008 5:31 PM
Two people I know, one of whom I've met face-to-face, were/are familiar that church. One of them, a former member, posted a wonderful anecdote about Greg McKendry, the man who used his body to shield other people. The other notes that the woman pastor, whose children are in the same school class as hers, is the only openly gay clergyperson in and around Knoxville. There's speculation that the shooter's manifesto alludes to this as one reason for shooting up the place.
This latest news about Adkisson's assault on his wife several years ago forces me to ask this question: no matter how much you support the Second Amendment, can you in any way justify permitting someone who has threatened another person with a firearm to own one after so doing? [generic "you," not aimed at Ed or anyone else in particular]
Posted by: Pieter B | July 28, 2008 5:47 PM
if the threat was justified, that is, if it could not have been prosecuted as assault with a deadly weapon or illegal threatening or any other such thing, then yes. in any instance even remotely like what Adkisson is reported to have done (intimidated his spouse during a bout of domestic violence) --- no, speaking for myself, i cannot.
and honestly, if he was convicted of domestic violence (as he probably should have been), then by law he wasn't allowed to own firearms. whatever gaps in the system may have allowed him to do so anyway could use fixing, in my opinion. (if he was never convicted, though... well, that may be a whole different problem in its own right.)
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 28, 2008 6:18 PM
I for one can't wait to read how Adkisson is actually a liberal whose rampage was the result of a society torn asunder by liberal values, ala Cho Seung-Hui.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 28, 2008 6:53 PM
This could be the piece to the puzzle. I have counseled spouses who have been in abusive situations and called for them to leae their spouses. I don't believe that God wants people to remain in abusive situations. I remember after one situation, where the husband was physically abusive, worrying about the husband showing up at church and doing just this-with me as the target.
Maybe he still blamed the leadership of the church for the breakup of his marriage-and not his own behavior.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | July 28, 2008 7:31 PM
Yes. My grandfather once caught a guy stealing from him and held the man at gunpoint until the police arrived. I see no reason why my grandfather should be prohibited from owning a firearm.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 28, 2008 8:19 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2008 8:47 PM
There's a rather huge difference in the situations there, Gretchen. I can't imagine anyone suggesting someone be denied the use of a firearm because he used it to defend his property. But in this case, we're talking about a headcase threatening his wife.
Posted by: Dono | July 28, 2008 8:50 PM
Nomen Nesciso:
Hate the shooter, love his second amendment right.
Posted by: democommie | July 28, 2008 8:59 PM
Taz,
Not if "crazy" means "there can be no coherent reason for his actions." Mass killers have killed groups of strangers for very specific reasons quite often, and those reasons can be understood. Explaining the reasons for a killer's actions does not excuse them-- you don't have to insist that a killer is "crazy" in order to adequately emphasize the immorality of his behavior.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 28, 2008 9:06 PM
As a former UU, the most amazing part was this congregation taking him down!
Posted by: Old Bogus | July 28, 2008 9:37 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2008 10:11 PM
"As a former UU, the most amazing part was this congregation taking him down!"
John Derbeyshire would be proud.
Posted by: Bill in NC | July 28, 2008 10:40 PM
The question was phrased poorly; it should have been characterized in terms of "abuse" perhaps.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 28, 2008 10:47 PM
Saying a person kills "because he's crazy" is like having someone pull over to ask you for directions when you're out walking, and when they ask where they are, you say "you're in a minivan." Even if it's true, it doesn't tell you anything.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 28, 2008 10:50 PM
Azkyroth-
Well, it tells you that his politics probably weren't the likely "cause" of his actions, his mental illness- apparently exacerbated by stress and substance abuse- were.
That's more or less just a slightly nicer way of saying "crazy".
Posted by: Leni | July 28, 2008 10:57 PM
Posted by: Taz | July 28, 2008 11:49 PM
"Crazy" is a blanket term for a whole range of psychological abnormalities. I agree that "crazy" doesn't really tell us anything anymore; we should be asking what form this man's mental illness has taken.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | July 29, 2008 12:03 AM
Taz said:
If he wanted to do that, why not shoot random people on the street? A Girl Scout meeting? An arts and crafts fair? His political ramblings are relevant to why he chose a Unitarian Universalist church, just as Charles Manson's ramblings are relevant to why he persuaded a bunch of people to murder innocents, and Eric Rudolph's ramblings are relevant to why he decided to bomb a couple of abortion clinics and a lesbian night club.
Posted by: Gretchen | July 29, 2008 12:17 AM
The Knoxville local news says he had O'Reilly, Hannity, and Savage books in his house. Big surprise. I guess this guy thought he was "delivering us from [the] evil" of liberals like Hannity hoped for on the cover of one of his books.
Or maybe he thought of himself as a "T-Warrior" striking out at one of the left-wing commie hippie homo/mexican immigrant loving Nazi S-Ps who are trying to destroy "traditional" white America that O'Reilly keeps warning about.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | July 29, 2008 1:21 AM
Here is a link to a Knoxville media-outlet story that references the killer having three books that attack liberalism (Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage): http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/jul/29/suspects-note-cites-liberal-movement-church-attack/
It will be interesting to see how Faux News handles this story. I watched BOR last night for as long as I could stomach (52 minutes) with no mention of this story.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 29, 2008 7:11 AM
The guy spent time composing a note (several days before he acted), brought 76 rounds with him, hid the shotgun in a guitar case and drove (according to police reports) approximately 20 minutes from his home to reach the church. Sounds like pre-meditated murder to me. It also sounds as if he specifically targeted a group of folks that he perceived as those who caused his problems--a perception that would of course be reinforced by the "works" of folks like Billy O, Sean and the rest of the reichwing dysintelligensia.
Posted by: democommie | July 29, 2008 7:55 AM
It might tell you that the militant, eliminationist rhetoric that the ultra-right wing noise machine has been spewing has the effect of motivating unbalanced people into politically-motivated mass murder. He didn't want to take as many people as possible with him; he wanted to take as many liberals as possible with him, and there's a reason he picked liberals in specific.
Posted by: Shygetz | July 29, 2008 8:10 AM
This man lived less than a block from my house; my wife and I watched the cops searching the house. They found some anti-liberal hate literature. I shudder to think that my children could have been a target four years ago when I had a big John Kerry sign in my yard (it disappeared two days after I posted it).
It's too bad early reports had the effect of implying an anti-Christian motive for the attack. The fact that he drove by dozens of conservative megchurches to get to his UU church should tell you something. The UU church had a "Gays Welcome" sign out front, and the minister, Chris Buice, often writes to the Knoxville News-Sentinel advocating church-state separation. Probably more than my psychopath neighbor could take.
Posted by: Robski | July 29, 2008 9:20 AM
"His political ramblings are irrelevant."
You are wrong, Taz. These ramblings are revelatory of motive. There is a large Baptist church within three minutes walk of his house; two more lie within a three-minute drive; dozens lie within him and his destination: the only liberal church around. How can you see this confluence of evidence as irrelevant? He isn't just a nut; like the 911 hijackers and McVeigh, he is an ideologue nut.
Posted by: Robski | July 29, 2008 9:28 AM
nm: Having looked at the comments you mention, I'm really not sure whether those respondents were actually justifying the shooting themselves, or merely anticipating how certain bigoted wingnuts would justify it. Another example of a mindset so crazy and asinine that it can't be distinguished from the satire of it.
Re: the fruitfulness of speculating on the shooter's motives and mental state, I would say that there is a good lesson to be learned about the effects of chronic abuse and scapegoating rhetoric. This guy is clearly crazy; but he was not born crazy, he was MADE crazy by certain influences: such as an authoritarian organized religion that treated him like crap and never tolerated any sort of dissent; and hateful right-wingers encouraging him, and others like him, to redirect their anger according to the convenience of the right-wingers, rather than at those who actually caused his problems. The people who used and abused this poor fool, also managed to make him a compliant tool in his own destruction, by leaving him so lost and unable to think for himself that he would lash out at whoever his abusers told him to lash out at.
This is an example of how ignorant bullies manage to gain power over others, without having to actually offer anyone anything beneficial in return for their cowed compliance.
Posted by: Raging Bee | July 29, 2008 10:10 AM
I'm astonished at how some people want to depoliticize something that is so obviously political in nature. Adkisson shot up the UU Church precisely for political reasons, i.e., that the church represented the "liberal movement." It is utter foolishness to deny that this is a consequence of ten-plus years of right-wing hate courtesy of Limbaugh, Colter, O'Reilly, Savage, etal. Do we think that "liberals" can be endlessly demonized as traitors and terrorists without this sort of stuff eventually happening?
Of course there are other contributing factors like the killer's inability to find work and his probable mental instability, but to ignore the very obvious contribution of right-wing hate speech to shaping his murderous mentality is absolutely wrongheaded.
I'm a UU. Now I feel like that puts a target around my neck. Don't tell me politics has nothing to do with that.
Posted by: Jason | July 29, 2008 10:15 AM
We know some of what he wrote in his "manifesto," and we we also know his recoverable reading list apparently contained three books. "Liberalism is a Mental Illness" by Michael Savage, "Deliver Us from Evil" by Sean Hannity, and "The O'Reilly Factor" by Bill O'Reilly.
In fact, it's almost too "perfect." It's like he purposely went out of his way to show the radical right wing was his motivation. I've also little doubt that will be noticed by others, and conspiracy theories will be thrown around by the radical right assholes themselves about how he was really a crazed leftist atheist trying to make them look bad. More likely, however, he just wanted other people to know what he was about. Possibly in the hopes that they would echo his actions, and even more likely because he wanted like-minded fools, diseased little trolls like himself, to view him as a martyr their shared, twisted ideology.
Posted by: Rev.Enki | July 29, 2008 11:59 AM
Ed Brayton, why in the world would you say that the UU church "was really just a place for religious humanists." It sounds as if you're demeaning their religious communities because they don't fit your definition of "church," whatever that is. I'm not a UU, but the UUs I know take their religion and their church life very seriously, they attend services like lots of other religious folks, they take part in social service and action like lots of other churches do. Besides, quite a few UUs identify themselves as Christian without the dogma baggage.
Posted by: PROUDBUTSCAREDLIBERAL | July 29, 2008 12:02 PM
Jason wrote:
I don't know about Taz, but my line of thinking is not that his politics were irrelevant or (as Gretchen pointed out earlier) not useful for understanding his actions*, but more that his mental illness probably prevented him from expressing his political leanings in appropriate, proportionate, rational, legally and/or morally defensible ways.**
His politics were disgusting, and I don't intend to defend them. Nor do I wish to say he is not responsible for his actions or "legally insane". And while I'm not at all sure where the line is between crazy and asshole, I feel uneasy "blaming" his politics for his actions when he is so clearly unhinged.
There are times when I don't feel uneasy about it (i.e. Tim McVeigh or the Sept. 11 hijackers), but this is not one of them.
...
* This also relates to Gretchen's remarks about the coherence of his actions and his "craziness". Crazy people sometimes take actions that only appear incoherent until you step into their world a little bit. I had a friend who thought she was going to give birth to the second coming of Jesus Christ in the Nevada desert. In her mind, getting pregnant and going to the desert to give birth made perfect sense. In the sense that we can understand why she did it, her actions are coherent. At least insofar as we can follow her logic trail. But we can also understand that the problem wasn't really her religion, it was her schizophrenia. Her actions weren't something she could be argued out of, but they certainly wasn't incoherent.
I'm not saying this is the same as Adkisson, I just suspect that if he'd had different politics he simply would have ended up killing someone else. Girl scouts, maybe- who knows? Likewise, if my friend had never heard of Jesus her delusions would have simply manifested in another form.
What what bothers me more is not that Adkisson was reading right wing hate propaganda, but that the guy apparently had easier access to guns than he had to mental health services.
** I'm not personally convinced these adjectives apply to any hateful anti-gay, anti-liberal rhetoric. But certainly being a stupid, hateful jerk is not on the same level of being a stupid jerk who murders people who disagree with you, mental illness or no.
Posted by: Leni | July 29, 2008 6:52 PM
Rev. Enki wrote:
Or perhaps he was a diseased little troll who simply found the hateful, scapegoating rhetoric in those books appealing, but left them lying around much like he left his other possessions lying around. I don't see why that should be "too perfect".
Posted by: Leni | July 29, 2008 7:10 PM