davebarnhart.net

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Concern About The Golden Compass

I ran across articles about the movie The Golden Compass the other day, and have just received viral email about the movie. Like other moral panics (The Last Temptation of Christ, etc.) I think the worst thing Christians can do is go nuts about this movie. The children kill God. So what? I don’t think most Christians understand that our faith is based on this idea:

1) We’ve already killed God.

2) It didn’t take.

Monday, October 29, 2007

Your Eyes Are Too Pure to Look on Evil

Just a random scriptural observation, here. I was reading Habukuk 1:1-2:4 in preparation for next Sunday, and I ran across this line:
“Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, and you cannot look on wrongdoing.”

This line is usually taken out of context and used to show God’s relationship to evil or our sin, that God is so holy that God cannot be associated, cannot even see sin. But it perverts the meaning of the text. The author is incredulous that God doesn’t do something about the evil he witnesses. The very next line is:
“why do you look on the treacherous, and are silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they?”

In other words, this is not systematic theology. This is lament, calling God to task. Using this line to support substitutionary atonement is dishonest.

The God Who Wasn’t There Part 2: Overview and Outline

There are multiple angles you can take to attack Christianity. You can take a philosophical angle, arguing that the notion of God (theism in general) or of Jesus as God (Christianity in particular) are unreasonable ideas. This movie does not really take a philosophical approach (dealing with abstract arguments about epistemology or miracles), but philosophical objections do form a sort of backdrop against which Flemming makes other arguments. I’m using the term “philosophical” here in a particular way.

You can make historical arguments against Christianity. Brian Flemming has chosen to start his movie this way. You can say that things did not happen the way they are described in the Bible, or that Christianity was invented by the missionary Paul, or that it began honest and sincere but that the church corrupted the message, and by any number of other arguments imply that the worldview of Christianity is bogus because the way Christians tell history is wrong.

You can make ethical arguments against Christianity, either by showing how it has been historically vicious (Inquisitions, Crusades, Opiate of the Masses, Jerry Fallwell, Tammy Faye, Prohibition, Anti-Porn laws, and all the trees ground into pulp for church bulletins), or by attacking Christian ethics themselves (a la Nietzsche’s “slave morality”).

As I look back over the notes I made on The God Who Wasn’t There, I see that these last two are the main arguments Flemming uses in attacking Christian faith as a whole. There are also some key themes that run through the movie that help him make his case.

The first theme is the argument Flemming makes specifically against what he calls Moderate Christianity which is critical for the overall thrust of the movie. If your goal is to show that Christianity is unreasonable, then it is important to keep any reasonable Christian voice from being heard. This is no easy task. Flemming has to deliberately ignore centuries of religious dialogue and precedent to adhere to the same either/or literalist interpretation of scripture he was taught in his fundamentalist school. This is why there is only one interview with an atheist, non-Christian Biblical scholar (of which there are plenty) in the movie, and why he supplements this lack by interviewing a folklorist, a historian, and the mythbusting couple behind Snopes.com (of which I’ll have more to say later).

Second is the incomprehensible stupidity of Christians, which he highlights first by interviewing folks leaving a Billy Graham crusade, and second by an interview with the principal of Flemming’s boyhood fundamentalist private school. I honestly enjoyed these interviews - in much the same way as I enjoy the cringe-inducing humor of The Office. I’m ignoring the interview with the creator of raptureletters.com for now.

Third, and related to the historical argument, there is the theme of other religions, and the way early Christianity liberally borrowed from first-century mystery cults and pagan religions. Christians are often under the false impression that their religion is pure, written by the very hand of God and delivered to them in a cultural vacuum. Flemming’s argument here would have been more convincing if he didn’t seem to buy into the same idea, ignoring, as I said above, 2000 years of church tradition and Biblical interpretation the way his fundamentalist mentors did. (And do).

While I mostly enjoyed the movie, I have to say that the composition drove me nuts. I have the sense that Flemming composed this documentary the way a novice preacher composes a sermon: list every point you want to make on note cards (in this case, everything that pisses you off about Christianity), and then find some place to say it. It makes it tough to address the ideas in a systematic way. I was thankful for the DVD chapter titles.

Now, usually when I make an outline, I regret it, because I wind up painting myself into a corner. The better way to make an outline is to write, and then make the outline, and then go back and revise what you said to fit. But if I don’t approach this with some sort of plan, my thoughts will run this way and that, and getting them back together will be like herding cats. But the way I plan on addressing the movie will be:

1. First Impressions (the last post)

2. Overview and Outline (this post)

3. The sense of so-called “Moderate” Christianity: precedents for Biblical interpretation. This is important because Flemming would consider me a moderate Christian, and anything a “moderate” would say Flemming dismisses out-of-hand because it isn’t fundamentalist. So I have to justify my own voice.

4. The historicity of Jesus and how we infer the history of the early Church. Flemming argues that Jesus didn’t exist, and that the gospel accounts are attempts to place a mythological idea into real history. It’s tough for me to ascertain whether he thinks the gospel writers meant their work to be read as history or not. 

5. Syncretism and the appropriation of pagan mythology. Flemming argues that the Jesus myth appropriates religious ideas already present for centuries in other religions.

6. Heroes and Anti-heroes. This may be a subtopic of #3, about how Jesus fits the mold of classic hero-types.

7. Understanding blood sacrifice, salvation, and what Jesus did. Flemming points out that Christians are particularly bloody-minded, reveling in Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. He implies that fascination with blood atonement is an example of deficient character in Christians, one that goes hand-in-hand with hate speech, anti-homosexuality, anti-Semitism, etc. I will probably talk about Christus Victor, and alternative atonement theories.

8. The ethics of faith: “Faith stops conversation” and bloody history. The argument goes like this: faith keeps people from thinking, which allows them to be barbarians. I can do anything to people’s bodies if I tell myself I really want to save their souls. Atheism liberates us from such thinking. I will describe why I am skeptical of this opinion.

9. Why I like atheists (and why I’m not one). Flemming makes a point of saying he likes the founder of raptureletters.com, but I think he’s insincere. This is my version of the same rhetorical strategy: “see? I’m not radical. I even like the person I’m painting as my enemy.” One reason I don’t like doing “apologetics” is because I can truly see the world from an atheistic point of view. I have never been comfortable with Lee Strobel’s or Josh McDowell’s versions of Christian faith. In all honesty, I tend to like atheists a whole lot better than I like most Christians. For one thing, they tend to have a better sense of humor. For another, they’ve actually thought about their faith. But I have to be careful, because I find that thinking that way makes me feel superior. It’s a character flaw of which I’m aware, and it makes me more sensitive to arrogance in others. And Brian - not that you will ever read this, but I say it knowing of the massive log in my own eye - you are one arrogant dude.

I’m not really going to address philosophical arguments against Christianity (epistemology, philosophy of science, causality, etc.), since they only play a supporting role in the movie.

I also reserve the right to completely ignore this outline, or not write any of it, because I know myself too well to assume I have the patience or endurance for a sustained treatise on a single topic. I look at that list and think, man, there are 7 blog posts I’ve committed to! There are zombie movies to review, unfinished books to write, and plenty of nits left unpicked in other areas.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

The God Who Wasn’t There Part 1: First Impressions

Wow. I just finished the documentary God Who Wasn’t There, by Brian Flemming. The movie condenses many of the loudest and most bitter arguments against religion that have surged among atheist proselytizers in recent years.  It was fascinating to watch this smart, witty, ex-fundamentalist wrestle with the ghosts of his past, but it was also a bit sad. I think Michael Moore made it fashionable for documentary film-makers to wear their hearts on their sleeves. I found myself wishing Flemming would tone it down a bit. I tell preachers to let the images do the work. He felt compelled to explain them all.

The most astonishing argument is that Jesus wasn’t even an historical person. Now, almost no respectable historian disputes that Jesus actually existed. The Gospels themselves are too acrobatic, too explanatory, too concerned with establishing why one set of facts and not another, for them not to be about an historical person. If you are writing about a fictional savior who comes to the Gentiles, you don’t have him rebuff a Syro-Phoenician woman. If you are making up a story about a God-Man, you don’t have him experience abandonment and forsakenness on the cross. If Christianity was so derivative and made up from whole cloth, why didn’t it follow the gnostic pattern? Jesus didn’t exist? Come on. Maybe you could convince me that he didn’t say everything attributed to him, or that there as been significant fabrication, but that he didn’t exist? Does that mean Peter, James and John, and all the apostles didn’t exist, either? And the communities of faith that formed around them - they came about how, exactly?

I’m not a big fan of most apologetics, but I’d like to take some time to hit a few of the main arguments of the movie, since, as I said, it condenses a lot of the arguments floating around out there already. The movie doesn’t pretend to be anything other than faith-bashing propaganda, but I’m glad I watched it. Its tone and style demonstrate that atheists can be just as fundamentalist as religious folk.

Monday, October 22, 2007

The Worship Industry

Bradley forwarded this video to me some time ago, but I recently remembered it during the Bishop’s Convocation (which was about preaching).

Often we pretty things up for sermons. This week I went ugly. I preached on Matthew 6: 19-24, and I talked about how the only way to put money in its place, to make it serve us rather than us serving it, is to give it away. It was interesting to me that people seemed to respond really well. I think congregations often have the sense that preachers are not entirely honest with them, that clergy pull punches and fail to acknowledge real human experience or real social problems.

I enjoy using the language of “spiritual warfare” for what most preachers mean in a very different way. But I think it’s much more honest and faithful to what Paul meant. The Powers and Principalities are not invisible imps. They are real, they are malevolent, and they eat human beings for lunch.

Sometimes I think the worship industry itself becomes another power - one that appropriates Christian worship and turns it into an idol, a product to consume, something that can be shrinkwrapped and sold. I don’t have a problem with buying and selling - it’s a fact of life that we trade things we value less for things we value more. But I think that “pretty” worship has a tendency to blind us to social realities, to acknowledge our human-ness and complicity in social sin.

Authentic worship needs, at times, to advocate social justice, to acknowledge doubt and God’s absence, to hold accountable and remind God of God’s promises when God hides:

Frequently, far from holding God accountable, we hear it said that Christians need to learn to accept whatever happens as the will of God. ...This is not, however, behavior that fosters a love of God.
-Roberta Bondi, To Pray & to Love, p. 127

Worship that holds God accountable, that is honest about social sin and our complicity, that echoes the psalmists and the Hebrew captives - what would that kind of worship look like?

Saturday, October 20, 2007

U2charist Wrap-up

I was nervous about doing a U2charist, becuase we only got started a month ago. Our Outreach Team at trinity had planned on doing one social justice event in the fall. Last spring we had a viewing of It’s A Thick Book, and brought in a panel to talk about Alabama Consitutional Reform. We had planned on doing an immigration event in October, but one of our members suggested partnering with some other churches and doing the U2charist.

A week before the event, I still didn’t feel prepared. We had decided to go with multimedia and recorded music rather than a live band, since we had limited prep time. Would people sing with recorded music? Was the liturgy too long? Would we have enough seats? Would anyone show up?

The Friday before, SIFAT called. They had 22 international visitors from places like Rwanda, Cameroon, Guatemala, and Ecuador. They said their students would love to come to participate in our service. Some of their African students could sing an African chant, and they had a beautiful harmonic version of SIFAT’s song, Change the World. In one 20 minute phone conversation our worship service had gone from being about the developing world to involving the developing world. How cool is that?

The service went better than I possibly could have expected. Wednesday morning we had an interview on a local station. The media showed up again before the event.

People kept trickling in. Several youth groups showed up. We were late getting started because people kept coming through the doors. The SIFAT participants started with their chant, making the occasional animal sound effect, and the congregation hushed and listened in awe. We followed their chant with Where the Streets Have No Name and When Love Comes to Town. The SIFAT participants returned to pray for each of the Millennium Development Goals, after which we had more U2 songs. Max Blalock preached a sermon on the Good Samaritan, we took an offering, and Deb Welch and I led the Great Thanksgiving. After Holy Communion, we stood and The SIFAT participants closed with Change the World.

In all, we had 232 people stand against poverty, and contributed over $1500 to Nothing But Nets. People did sing, and clap, and shout, and although there are fifty little things I would have liked to have done differently, God was at work. I certainly did not expect the response we got, or for the worship service to move people the way it did. The Holy Spirit got under people’s skin. I should have known. She Moves in Mysterious Ways.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Why is Church Anti-Boy?

I’ve said before that Raising Cain is one of my favorite books, and the documentary isn’t bad, either.

There’s an interesting scene in the documentary of a kindergarten class taught by a progressive teacher who allows the children plenty of self-determination in classroom governance. At one point, the kids share stories. One of the boys tells a story in which a villain gets killed.

The teacher asks the class what they think of the story. Some of the outspoken girls don’t like the fact that the villain gets killed. The class takes a vote and makes a new rule: in stories, characters cannot die. They can only faint.

The boy who told the story seems to deflate. Another boy complains that if characters can only faint, there’s hardly any story to tell.

Michael Thompson makes the point in the documentary that although there has been plenty of research on how boys have an unfair advantage in co-ed classrooms, education isn’t exactly fair to boys, either. They are required to sit and be still to learn, even when their bodies are telling them to wrestle, tumble, and move. They are therefore disproportionately diagnosed with ADD and medicated simply for being boys. They are punished when they share their rich and often violent fantasies.

Likewise in church our main way of doing ministry is sitting around and talking about our feelings. It’s not that boys don’t have feelings, or that they don’t need to be emotionally intelligent - on the contrary, Thompson demonstrates that boys have a complex emotional life. But instead of celebrating boys’ natural aggressiveness and physicality, we pathologize it and moralize against it. Violence is bad. Killing is bad. If you like fantasizing about those things, you are bad.

So I have little patience for critics of video games. Hand-wringing about Halo’s violence seems to me to be another classroom rule directed toward men and boys which says, “we can’t have any killing - only fainting.”

Some people argue that playing Halo in church is selling out or pandering to our violent culture. I believe we play into our violent culture’s hands when we alienate boys. We completely lose credibility with them when we act as if they don’t have the capacity to tell fantasy from reality. So instead they check out from church and check into corporate culture which will validate their sense of masculinity, and will tell them what it means to be a man.

Boys need to play soldier, and cops and robbers, and pirates and ninjas. If the church were truly concerned about reducing the level of violence in our culture, it might begin by addressing poverty, or the images of women in advertising, or, I don’t know, the war in Iraq. Scapegoating video games is a cheap way to avoid the more controversial and systemic sources of violence in American culture.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

U2charist

[UPDATE] - Here is some local press coverage of the event, in which I use up 1 of my 15 minutes of fame.

Tomorrow night we will be hosting a U2 Eucharist (or “U2charist”). This is one of those things which, if you had told me I’d be doing when I was 15, I would have thought you were nuts. I grew up with the music of U2, and their lyrics spoke to me much more powerfully than usual church fare.

It’s funny to me to see the press about the U2charist and hear folks talking about how this will reach “young people.” 15 years ago this would have been cutting-edge. Now it is merely the natural result of people my age being in ministry. Still, I’m excited to see this movement. Bono has been a prophetic voice, criticizing the church but also calling it to action. There’s something profoundly Biblical about the outsider/insider calling God’s people to faithfulness. Ruth, Moses, the Syro-Phoenecian woman, Nehemiah, all represent those figures on the boundaries who remind us that God’s intention in choosing a people is to bless the world.

Our event will take up a collection for Nothing But Nets. I’m looking forward to it.

Prayer for a Belligerent Panhandler

I do not know what he really needs.
Perhaps it is money.
Perhaps it is justice.
Perhaps it is a life lesson.
Perhaps it is something else.

Whatever it is, God, you know.
Lord, let him have it.
Really hard.

Likewise, you know what I need better than I do.
Lord, let me have it.
Not so hard, if you don’t mind.

Amen.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Another Scarry Quotation

I just ran across this quotation from Elanie Scarry’s On Beauty and Being Just, which relates to my earlier post on the Dawkins/Lennox debate. She is writing about how truth and beauty at points seem to converge and others diverge:

This may be why, though the vocabulary of beauty has been banished… from the humanities for the last two decades, it has been openly in play in those fields that aspire to have “truth” as their object - math, physics, astrophysics, chemistry, biochemistry - where every day in laboratories and seminar rooms participants speak of problems that are “nice,” theories that are “pretty,” solutions that are “beautiful,” approaches that are “elegant,” “simple.” The participants differ, though, on whether a theory’s being “pretty” is predictive of, or instead independent of, its being “true.” (p. 52)

Reading and Chocolate

Some writing is like thick, rich cake. I’ve been reading Elaine Scarry’s book On Beauty and Being Just for what - two years now? It has 150 pages. She layers each morsel with deep thoughts and tasty prose. Every 4 pages or so I have to put it down and wash some of that cake down with milk. Some light British humor, maybe, or even Calvin and Hobbes. I can only take so much at a time - but it is so yummy. It is unlike cake in that I can have it and eat it, too - sometimes I’ll go back and re-read a paragraph and wonder “how did she do that?” At times, her descriptions of Matisse get a bit tiring to me, but only because I have a hard time seeing what she sees. I’ve been reading the book on my lap in front of the computer, so that I can google The Artist and His Model or Interior with Egyptian Curtains.

Buechner’s stuff is also tightly packed, but I can seem to swallow it in greater doses. I’ve been reading Beyond Words as a supplement to my daily attempted daily devotional, and today’s mini-essay on The Cross blew my mind. His style lends itself to short, pithy essays. I consume them like therapeutic chocolates. I read Brendan a while back, and while I thoroughly enjoyed it, the richness began to give me the shakes. I think I might try Godric soon.

I’ve been on a binge lately, rediscovering this amazing institution called the library. You know, you can request nearly any book you want in Birmingham, and they will bring it to your local branch, you can go pick it up, keep it for weeks at a time, and return it for free? Seriously. You don’t have buy it, or find bookshelf space to store it. If you decide that you can’t live without having your own copy, you can always find a used copy on the internet. And if you don’t like it, you haven’t spent anything but time. Is that not fabulous?

I know pastors who do not read. They say they do not have time. They may be fine preachers - I really don’t know. But I will say this: every preacher I have ever wanted to emulate reads. Voraciously. I don’t know how you would ever be able to preach a sermon that wasn’t simply based on your own experiences and life illustrations without reading. I don’t know how you would learn about language and how it fits together. To me, it’s like eating. I need a well-balanced diet to be healthy and a variety of flavors to make life interesting. In that sense maybe Scarry’s book is less like chocolate and more like roasted Moroccan vegetables - great-tasting and good for you.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Dawkins/Lennox Debate Reflection

I did not catch Dawkins on the Rick and Bubba show (see previous post), but I was pleasantly surprised by his debate with Lennox on Wednesday.

I was a bit disappointed in that the format of the debate really didn’t allow Dawkins to argue at his best. I thought Lennox did a good job overall, and made a couple of my favorite points that I feel often get neglected in the atheist vs. Christian debate (like the history of atheistic ideology). The crowd seemed well-behaved, which was something I was nervous about. Nothing speaks against Christianity better than a room full of militant Christians who boo and heckle. But apart from some partisan applause, everyone sounded hospitable.

Toward the end of the debate, when Lennox really made some confessional statements about the Lordship of Jesus, Dawkins’ reply really made me wish that I could ask them both a question about aesthetics. Dawkins said something along the lines of “so now it really comes out, doesn’t it? [that sectarian belief in Jesus is behind Lennox’s theism] It’s so petty and ugly.” His description of Lennox’s creedal statements as “ugly” led me to suspect that one of the chief motivators in our choice of worldview is beauty.

Dawkins and Lennox argued primarily over these points: is faith based on evidence or not? Is theism good for the world or not? But what I think goes unargued is the question: is an atheistic or a theistic belief more beautiful?

Sometimes, when I read Loren Eiseley’s Immense Journey or hear a phsyicist talk about their semi-religious wonder at the universe, I can see the beauty of an atheistic belief system. They use words like “simplicity” and “elegance.” Likewise, the best religious writing stirs up in me a longing and an appreciation of beauty, in creation, in redemption, in the tragicomic human situation.

Elaine Scarry talks about beauty this way:

These first and second attributes of beauty [being sacred and being unprecedented] are very close to one another, for to say that something is “sacred” is also to say either “it has no precedent” or “it has as its only precedent that which is itself unprecedented.” But there is also a third feature: beauty is lifesaving. Homer is not alone in seeing beauty as lifesaving. Augustine desribed it as “a plank amid the waves of the sea.” Proust makes a version of this claim over and over again. Beauty quickens. It adrenalizes. It makes the heart beat faster. It makes life more vivid, animated, living, worth living.

- Elaine Scarry. On Beauty and Being Just. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999, p. 24.

There’s no question that Dawkins sees atheism as lifesaving, Darwin’s ideas as unprecedented, and the beauty of the universe as “sacred.”

Scarry explores some features of beauty that we don’t normally consider. For example, one of the most powerful experiences of beauty is when we realize we have been wrong, that something we thought was mundane or ugly turns out to be achingly beautiful, like the play of light through palm fronds, or a sharp black and white photograph of an elderly woman’s wrinkled, leathery skin. We have an epiphany or a revelation. Something is “revealed” to us in beauty, and we can realize that our past judgments about what is beautiful can be wrong. It isn’t just a question of taste. There is something true and eternal in beauty.

There is also an urgency to beauty, something that calls for a response from us. Whether you are a theist or not, we describe these kinds of experiences as “religious,” and use the language of holiness or even righteousness:

The moment of coming upon something or someone beautiful might sound… like this: “You are about to be in the presence of something life-giving, lifesaving, something that deserves from you a posture of reverance or petition. It is not clear whether you should throw yourself on your knees before it or keep your distance from it, but you had better figure out the right answer because this is not an occasion for carelessness or for leaving your own postures wholly to chance. It is not that beauty is life-threatening… but instead that it is life-affirming, life-giving, and therefore if, through your careless approach, you become cut off from it, you will feel its removal as a retraction of life. You will fall back into the sea, which even now, as you stand there gazing, is only a few feet behind you.”  (p. 27)

In those few last lines of Dawkins’ on the ugliness of Lennox’s statement, I felt I had glimsped a problem that debates about God’s existence don’t reveal. Our aesthetic judgments (which, according to Scarry, are related to our moral judgments) may precede our philosophies of science and religion. I think a lot of what we assume is our reason at work on this issue is actually our minds coping with our unarticulated judgment about whether something is transcendentally beautiful. If I look at the Crucified Messiah with an eye toward the aesthetics of the story, I see something beautiful: a statement about our paradoxical human situation, sin and redemption, failure and grace, divinity and humanity wrapped up in each other. Dawkins sees something ugly: a sectarian myth, a ploy to sneak in exclusivism and hostility under the guise of humility and self-sacrifice.

I also think there is something to be said for being able to appreciate the beauty of atheism if you are a Christian. Perhaps it is a “tempting” beauty (“tempting” is a word that Dawkins used a lot in the debate), but if Christians cannot appreciate the beauty of atheism and only recoil in horror or attribute it to a subconcious desire to live immorally, I do not think that they can be good witnesses to nonbelievers. I’m not advocating for atheism, here; but I don’t do justice to God’s truth if I don’t try to understand atheistic worldviews. Perhaps atheism is a manifestation of our separate-ness from God, a symptom of the fall - even so, that separateness, along with doubts about and alienation from God, is part of my experience. Should I lie and say that human beings cannot live as though God doesn’t exist? That the world would automatically go to hell in a handbasket? Should I deny that there is a beauty to the way the universe seems to work “all by itself,” and say that humans cannot appreciate that beauty without reference to a Creator?

Christians also need to remember that our starting point for doing theology is not “God exists,” but “God came in the person of Jesus Christ.” This is where a lot of atheists misunderstand Christianity - and Christians misunderstand too. In Christ a lot of the abstract philosophical objections to God are taken up and nailed to the cross. Can God make a rock so big that God can’t lift it? If God is good, why is there suffering? Why are some prayers answered and others not? Do miracles happen, and if they do what does it mean for the universe? Bang, bang, bang, bang. If you are afraid of the questions, how can you bear to look at the cross? Looking at the cross, how can you not be afraid of the questions?

What do you think? Is Christianity ugly or beautiful?

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Dawkins/Lennox Debate: God Have Mercy

Dawkins and Lennox debate at the Alys Stephens Center tomorrow.

I didn’t find out about this until this morning at our Men’s Breakfast Bible study, and apparently the debate is sold out. I rolled my eyes when I found out about it and asked, “who is the Christian apologist that Dawkins will be debating? Did they pick someone who will do a good job? Because I can just see it being something like “Dawkins vs. Bubba.”

Guess what? The morning of the debate, Dawkins will be on the Rick and Bubba show.

Hurts. Too. Much.