Religious liberty is much in the news thanks to President Obama’s national health care program and its requirements for funding abortion and contraceptive service. (For what it’s worth, the bigger story here has less to do with religious liberty or freedom of conscience and health insurance than it does with who died and gave Health and Human Services powers no king could have imagined.) Outside THE beltway, religious liberty is also a topic for heated debate at Vanderbilt University. There officials have put a number of religious student groups in a provisional status thanks to their policies on student leaders. Christian groups, I suppose though cannot gather from one of the concerned websites, bar homosexuals from assuming positions of leadership. They may also exclude active unmarried heterosexuals. But whatever their policies, Vanderbilt apparently wants all organizations open to all students. If the student organizations do not comply, they may forego their lines of funding and places on campus.
Over at National Review, David French takes umbrage at what he sees as Vanderbilt’s attempt to intimidate Christian groups:
The reality, of course, is that Vanderbilt is trying to force the orthodox Christian viewpoint off campus. The “nondiscrimination” rhetoric is mere subterfuge. How can we know this? Because even as it works mightily to make sure that atheists can run Christian organizations, it is working just as mightily to protect the place and prerogatives of Vanderbilt’s powerful fraternities and sororities — organizations that explicitly discriminate, have never been open to “all comers,” and cause more real heartache each semester for rejected students than any religious organization has ever inflicted in its entire history on campus. Vanderbilt’s embattled religious organizations welcome all students with open arms; Vanderbilt’s fraternities and sororities routinely reject their fellow students based on little more than appearance, family heritage, or personality quirks.
Hard as it may be to understand why Vanderbilt would fail to see the value of the diversity of groups — instead of making them potentially all the same with similar sets of members — confessional Protestants may also sympathize with parts of the university’s actions. As bad as blaming the victim is, can Christians at Vanderbilt really not imagine that all the social conservatism going on in the nation’s politics will barely leave a ripple in the lives of believers outside the political fray? After all, if all of life is religious as evangelicals claim, then is a student Christian group on campus simply about devotion and worship or does it not also have political implications? I suppose that Wheaton College refuses to recognize pro-choice student associations. Is Vanderbilt any more biased, intolerant, or tyrannical if they identify conservative Christian student groups with Rick Santorum and the Republican base?
Mind you, the officials at Vanderbilt could be more charitable and patient as liberals are supposed to be. They could seek a compromise with the student groups — only prayer and Bible reading, not speakers for political topics. But given their ideas about equal rights and tolerance, Vanderbilt’s policy should not be a surprise, especially in a climate of a politicized faith.
Another reason for being cautious about the situation is that so far — PTL — Christians in the United States have all the freedom they need to worship God. They likely enjoy more freedom than Americans did at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (since some states still had established churches). And compared to the rest of the world, Americans are as rich in religious freedom as they are in cash, vacations, and reality shows. (In fact, it looks a tad indecent for Christians to complain about their rights in the U.S. when Christians throughout the Middle East are truly persecuted for the faith.) The lesson for Vanderbilt’s students may be that the city of Nashville has many fine churches. If students want to worship God, they have lots of options and should use them. A confessionalist might add that worshiping God while part of a congregation overseen by officers and in fellowship with a wider communion is far better than using a parachurch group as an ecclesiastical substitute.
In other words, as much as I don’t care for what Vanderbilt appears to be doing to the principles of diversity, I’m loathe to beat up on the university to defend parachurch organizations when plenty of congregations in Nashville would be glad to see the university’s students gather with them for worship.
(Thanks to our correspondent inside THE beltway.)
Old Life 
I see this as yet another sign that the left-right paradigm in the US is actually tearing at the social fabric of this society at the behest of the extreme expressions on both ends. Make no mistake the left and the right are at war for America to the detriment to those in the middle, or those like me who eschew both labels. To draw a parallel to one Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, who cites American aggression in the Middle East as creating blowback – it seems like the left and the right are creating a negative feedback loop predicated on blowback over cultural disputes here.
The right, in private religious, often parachurch organizations seek exclusivity, wile the left seeks absolute inclusion. As battle lines get drawn, they are seeking areas where they can stake beach-heads in each others territory. So Vandy is seeking to enforce inclusivism at the cost of exclusivism on matters that really don’t fall in the fundamental interests of either the church or the state. The right will object, protest, and seek recourse by establishing it’s own absolutism in social structures. In the end, real diversity suffers, the culture war persists, Christians end up confusing the mission of the church with the interests of the cultural Right, and hardline secularists end up confusing the interests of a fair, equitable society with a Constitutional pluralism, and everyone who doesn’t land in the extreme’s of the left-right polarization looses. Is there any wonder why some Christians would rather abdicate the culture wars entirely – as they do not concern our freedoms to worship on the Lord’s Day, make disciples, or any other truly churchly concern? I see this as yet another example of how the culture wars are eroding at the American consciousness, and damaging out delicate union.
LikeLike
Darryl:
The time is here to open a legal and historical inquiry into the extent and width of Supreme Court holdings on the First Amendment, no small task, along with appellate holdings, for the federalalies and varied states. Thanks for affording the prompt. It may take 6-8 months to get a handle on the varied holdings. Perhaps a year to provide a summary of the matter. But, the file, or several binders, are now opened.
Unrelatedly, 6th amendment inquiries and the binders have also been opened. Specifically, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 US 335 (1963), later put to the screen and played by Henry Fonda in “Gideon’s Trumpet.” But, I digress.
Best regards.
LikeLike
Darryl:
Wondering if an actionable civil case is in the offing here against Vanderbilt? Say, a few cool million dollars in a civil action to settle and chill further repressions, if not hostilities, by the University with an agenda? Unfortunately, tax payers might have to fork over the monies, but might be an interesting legal inquiry?
Time for some research.
I’ll ask the Federal Judge here in town, as well as some lawyers. If for nothing else, than some serious giggles and, maybe, for some tragedian elements, e.g. downfall, destruction (legally) and warranted despair.
Regards.
LikeLike
Oh, for heaven’s sake.
LikeLike
In a book entitled After Christendom, Stanley Hauerwas argues for a new kind of Constantinianism
chapter titles
The Politics of Salvation: Why There is No Salvation Outside the Church
The Politics of Freedom: Why Freedom of Religion is a Subtle Temptation
It is therefore not a surprise that Hauerwas agrees with Stanley Fish that there are no politics-free texts to read in the academy. And also no great shock that Stan was is so enthusiastic about Peter Leithart’s project of Defending Constantine (Against Christianity).
Free/dumb is dangerous if there are no bishops or presbyters to tell us what our conscience needs to tell us.
LikeLike
Viking:
I walked through a free exercise analysis here: http://presbyterianblues.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/mennonite-tires-and-your-religious-rights/
I haven’t looked carefully at the Vanderbilt case, but the analysis there will likely center on whether Vanderbilt has treated all groups – religious and secular alike – in the same manner.
Yes, I am a lawyer.
LikeLike
Mike:
Fantastic to have a lawyer in the house. I’m a theological-putz, retired from daily duties (e.g. employment), doing lawyer wanna-be stuff. Just finishing Legal Research and Writing 2 course here, so have some elemental beginnings in research tools. Civil Injuries and Civil Lit 1 in fall 2012. Again, fantastic to have a man with a 90-hour graduate degree, law license, and practice, presumably.
Also, just connected to Presbyterian Blues recently–a few days back–for updates as they occur. Will be reading your postings with regularity. Thank you.
Thank you for the review of Mitchell County v. Zimmerman. I;ll be getting to that in time sand its progeny of cases.
As noted above, the “binders,” or the file, on First Amendment rulings is now opened and will take months to assess. Spent 12 hours today on 6th Amendment rulings, so a little exhausted here, but 1st Amendment matters warrant review and, Deo Volente, will get that…a year maybe?
Also, in an unrelated matter per se, but relative to lawyers and theologians/theologian-pastors (as they ought be). In A.H. Strong’s ST, somewhere, a Systematic by a northern Baptist (want to say, Rochester, NY, 1905). Strong, in a footnote, references a MI Supreme Court Justice, to the general effect: recommending all prospective seminary students first attend law school, practice for 3-4 years, and then attend seminary. Based upon compliance with that recommendation, the Justice argues, a seminarian will have no difficulty understanding original sin and total depravity. Compelling. I wish more seminarians, like Dr. Van Drunen, had a law degree. A good friend, an attorney, a Confessional Lutheran Churchman, just finished his MDiv and is now in a PhD program in theology. When he writes, this scribe listens. He writes well.
In the military, enjoyed some rich relationships with lawyers who liked and read theology. A solid combination, I say.
Cheers, best regards and thanks for notes on the Mitchell County ruling.
LikeLike
So let me get this straight – seeing as how you don’t agree with the ecclesiastical understanding of the groups in question (wonder how Vandy’s RUF feels about this…), it’s ok for the University to treat them only slightly better than Stringer Bell treated Omar’s boyfriend?
LikeLike
Viking, the, why would tax payers have to pay Vandy’s legal bills since it’s a private university. Maybe the United Methodists would have to pay the bill.
LikeLike
Will, that may be the problem — your thinking that Vandy is in Stringer Bell territory. Thank the dear Lord for your liberties, man. Why are you so stingy with your regard for freedom in the U.S.? (BTW, was the use of “straight” a pun?)
LikeLike
MM,
A Palin fan and a lawyer? Sheesh, do you have any other skeleton’s you wan’t to drag out of the proverbial closet… I’d personnally be more cateful given the millions of readers of this site.
LikeLike
Darryl:
Vandy is private? News to me, but what do I know? Owned by UMC? What do I know? Interesting, however.
The “factual pattern” needs to be irrevocably assessed and established. Mike, a lawyer, by implication and inference here, per the above, has implicitly and wisely called for a review of the facts. Mike smartly tells us he doesn’t know the Vandy case. Nor do we at this point. Let the Vandy case be factually vetted. Prudent, thoughtful, deliberative and wise.
Darryl, it is commendable that we have a lawyer in our midst. This forum is blessed by that. They–tthe lawyers–think better and more differently than the non-legally trained. Darryl, your undergrad should see this. Perhaps historians are better. Nor sure about WTS/RTS theologians here. The Anglican fellows are awash in property issues, e.g Savannah’s Christ Church. But this much, lawyers want cold facts. The forum is richer for having Mike here. Very good to have a lawyer reading here, like Mike at Presby-Blues. As an historian, Darryl, I trust these are your values too. As the old Dragnet series and SGT Joe Friday exclaimed, “The facts, Ma’am, just the facts.” Darryl, this is what we need.
A “summary judgment,” of sorts, an established agreement as to the facts…a “factual pattern”…this needs to be put on the record. Not journalistic half-whacks, half-wits and enthusiasts, like American revivalists, but dlieberative jurists and the record. Sorry, Mr. Piper, no enthusiasms are desired or needed, just cold facts.
If anything, a MEMO of FACTS is needed. Then, a MEMO of law. Then, after a review of Vandy’s case, a MEMO of OPINION. At this point, the Vandy case needs a factual review. Mike, is there a disagreement here? I doubt so.
Whether 2K or 1K, no one wants a dissipation of facts, the law, and competent judgments. Period. Calvinists, including us exilic Anglicans, want thinking, reasonable disputes and evaluations. That’s our corporate DNA as Reformational Churchmen and Churchwomen (vs. bucolic Anabaptists, hot hothouse enthusiasts, tub-thumpers, backwoods Hillbillies, and exhorters). As Churchmen, we are a thinking and rational people.
Legally, if a private school and the Vandy-UMC had to foot the bill for a civil action, charming, interesting, and engaging. As Mike noted, there are issues here. If private, actionable, UMC might have to foot the bill. Let em.’
Theologically, I have little respect and regard for the UMC, but I am prejudiced “with cause.” Show me otherwise. Wow, UMC paying out a settlement? But, what’s actionable here? Hmmm….
As a bigot myself–openly so–impentitently so–against UMC and sectarian Wesleyanism, I’d love to see UMC be billed for a few cool millions. These abhorrent sectarians, these self-righteous Methodists and these enthusiasts, have no substantial reason for their actions in separating from the Church of England, with a Calvinistic creed and Prayer Book. Hah!
Sorry, for the more tolerant, the kinder, the gentler, if not more sophmoric, these are my views while driving the eastern coastline of NC. Am an old Confessionalistic Anglican, Calvinist and Prayer Book Churchman. Wesley erred like a stupid sheep. Wesley was more stupid than a bull, ox, sheep, or local dog. The UMC is sectarian, schismatic, and supremacist in its earlier orientation and iterations. Still is. then, like now. Let em’ answer for Vandy’s issues, I say.
Every UMC church I see, here in eastern NC, from Nag’s Head, NC, to Wilmington, NC, about 200 miles, reminds me of it. Sectarians, Arminians, Wesleyans, and schismatics, without a Reformed view of the BCP and Articles.
Darryl, since 1987, there was a view that UMC Chaplains, military officers, Navy and Marine Chaps…we all were learning, thinking, developing and SAYING openly…UMC Chaps are adrift and afloat on doctrinal seas. One could move from some conservative to some liberal ones. Most were liberal. Not sure if there was a single, orthodox, Creedal, or Confessional cluck-cleric amongst them. Oldlife.org might be kinder. I’m not, unless shown otherwise. Am willing to be rebutted. Willing to learn. But these were my experiences with UMC Churchmen.
An experiment in drifting at sea. That was the UMC.
Most UMC clerics were liberals in my 20-plus-experiences with them. As one “clucky-cleric” noted (is there a better term than “clucky-cleric?” Would Shakespeare elabourate beyond “clucky cleric?”…I think Old Will of Stratford-on-Avon, an old Anglican, brith to death, might approve), 1987, “if Joseph didn’t mind Mary’s loose living about Mary, why should I?” This junior officer, a UMC cluck-cleric, Bob, in time, made Captain or Colonel. Of course, a dismissal of the Virgin birth, was symptomatic of larger issues, as Machen warned us. Bob was socially charming and engaging, but theologically half-whacked, if I might say so.
Eegads, may I revise and extend? Or, another UMC cluck-bag-cleric, 1987, a Navy Captain, preaching a brilliant sermon on the Resurrection, Easter Sunday, 1987? On its merits, powerful. Engaging. Emphatic. Decisive. This old boy had a DMin-doctorate from Vanderbilt, a Skull-with Doctoral Lips-USMC Captain. I will never forget the Monday morning after a brilliant sermon on the Resurrection. The old “Rock with Lips and No Heart” stated, ” I just wish I believed it.” A tragic figure. Monday was an huge drag. Did the cluck tell the parish of his disbelief? Nope. Yet, this exilic Anglican heard the despair, the unbelief and disorientation on Monday morning. UMC, sorry, no trust.
There are some serious issues here.
As noted with Mike and the 1st Amendment, the “binders”, or the file, is opened, henceforth and forever, we expect, one year. An entire host and progeny of issues and rulings are developing. An examination of First Amendment issues.
Darryl, this much. Poor Dr. Frame is not, as we understand it, researching the law. Does the Not-Dr.Frame have a law degree? He’s cavilled, unconvincingly, like an irritated teenager, against Dr. Clark’s salutary call for Confessional integrty, thought, digiy and Churchmanship. Should we pay John future mind. That jury is out, but preliminary views are not positive.
Law and theology. Nor were the Profs at WTS-P. What did they know? Nor, the fellows at WTS-C. This much, at least Dr. Van Drunen decently obtained a law degree, like Mike. When the theocrats and theonomists appear, like Rabbi Bret, I’d like to cringe. Mike of all people, is in a better position to afford commentary. Or, a sensible review of history, by historians, also helps us.
This errant scribe, a theologue, a sinner, a justified saint, a lawyer-wannabe and reader, sort of, owithout the slghtest concern for photoops or numbers, continues the inquiries on the 1st Amendment.
My son, Robert Montgomery Veitch, 3.8 from UNCW, a likely law school candidate, wants me to be his paralegal in time. My wife supports this idea with an increasing flourish, but alas, what shall I offer regarding Protestant, Reformed, Confessional, Creedal, liturgical, apostolic, catholic and holy Catholicism? While in exile, the blossom of perseverence, hope, faith, fidelity and honour best flourishes–a difficult lesson to learn–in the desert. Bottomline, hoists the American liberals, the evangelicals, the post-moderns and other whackoes on their own petards. A “red rose” blossoms in this garden.
]Alas, this is where our covenant children and grandchildren must arise! God help us!
Best regards to all, except Romanists, American Anabaptists and non-Confessionalists.
Cheers,
The Marine Viking, or more simply, Donald. Some say, “The Donald.” Donald suffices.
LikeLike
Mike:
Let the review of the history and the very widtth of SCOTIS rulings on the 1st given insights here.The history is long and deep. 1 year perhaps on my end, but the “binders,” or the file, is now opened, including Mitchell County v. Zimmeran. Mike, this is an opening salvo of wider issues.
We lament that the Rev.Not-Dr. Frame, althought exclaimed as a “Doctor,” althought a Masters of some sort or other, a Shepardite during my days at WTS-P, a Van Tillian with few if any pastoral experiences, offers few defenses here. Let John return to law school. Or, better, let John return to graduate school and finish his doctorate, puleeze. At least Dr. Van Drunem studied law. We commend it. We respect it.
Let the debate wisely continue.
LikeLike
Jed, there’s a couple other things I need to get off my chest:
– In 7th grade I threw a damp sponge toward my buddy “Fat Man Hall,” only to have it veer sharply to the left, hitting the art teacher in the face. Worse, she didn’t punish me for it.
– I once led a small group Bible study full of art students, musicians, and street people. Sorry if that list is redundant.
I think that’s it, except for that unfortunate incident in which I knocked out a second degree black belt…who was a woman.
Thanks, I feel better now.
LikeLike
Jed,
You and I have disagreed in the past, but I think you have hit the nail on the head in your initial response to this post. You concluded with the following question:
My theological basis for agreeing with you is that the Church is the house that the Lord is building, and we must be sensitive, as you say, to the fragility of our union with the state. When the world produces “useful” cultural products, we should not hesitate to sanctify them to the glory of God, but why should we be concerned about waging cultural war with the world when they produce crap, which they are as likely to do?
LikeLike
Don, you’re just playing with our heads, right? You say you think DVD is entirely falacious. But the view of the church you articulate here is largely what you’re going to find with 2k. It’s the critics of 2k who want the church to transform the culture. Your calling for differentiation. Way to go (if you’re not stuck on April 1st).
LikeLike
Darryl,
No, I am absolutely serious. I really do agree with a lot of what you think and say. Let’s just leave it at that for now.
LikeLike
Don, I’m not sure it turns on crap versus substantive. It turns on imago Dei and non-imago Dei. How do useful cultural artifacts get sanctified? Isn’t sanctification only for those made imago Dei?
LikeLike
Will the earth itself be sanctified? Is the earth itself in the image of God?
Stanley Fish explains how the academy cannot avoid politics in the name of free/dumb.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/citing-chapter-and-verse-which-scripture-is-the-right-one/
LikeLike
Guys,
I was trying to avoid getting into another 2k debate with you all and demonstrate how much I love you.
LikeLike
But, as a teaser, don’t we sanctify the earth when we eat it and give thanks to God?
LikeLike
Don, why can’t eating just be eating and thanking be thanking? I know how to do both, but I’d rather leave sanctifying up to God since I’ve no idea how to do that any more than I know how to create.
LikeLike
Because He tells us to?
LikeLike
MM,
Now doesn’t that feel better? It had to be rough to keep those secret for so long, I don’t know how you managed.
LikeLike
Don,
It is always nice to agree, and glad to see that some of the transformationalist inclination are tiring of these culture wars as well. I do think we would differ in whether or not byproducts of culture can or should be sanctified though. Part of the tensions in the culture war is when well meaning Christians think it is their right or duty to transform a cultural structure or institution, and in doing so inflame the ire of those who don’t hold their Christian convictions (e.g. prayer in schools). I am not saying you are guilty of this, but I don’t think Christians in the US have adequately thought through the fact that we share this society with many people who are markedly different than we are, and they end up becoming a bully in the proverbial sandbox, not knowing how to play nice and respectfully. To be fair there are militant leftists and secularists, and others of similar persuasion who make the situation difficult on their end as well.
LikeLike
Don, what you said was: “When the world produces ‘useful’ cultural products, we should not hesitate to sanctify them to the glory of God, but why should we be concerned about waging cultural war with the world when they produce crap…”
Where has God told us to sanctify useful cultural products but leave crappy products alone? Not only do I not understand how we sanctify anything, this also sounds to me like the church should wage culture war over substantive cultural product but not the trivial. I know you said you didn’t want to tango, but it still sounds to me like you’re making some space for cultural take-over, albeit a kinder, gentler sort.
LikeLike
Don, I don’t know what your wife cooks, but I never put dirt on the menu. I believe it is possible to distinguish consecration from sanctification. Just as it is important to distinguish food from television. Putting something in my mouth after asking the Lord’s blessing, and using that thing for sustenance, is very different from praying before watching Curb Your Enthusiasm. My prayer does not sanctify Larry David. And sanctifying the culture is an entirely different proposition. How can I consecrate something that does not belong to me? In other words, we live with non-believer in this age (saeculum) and hence we need two kingdoms.
LikeLike
Zrim says;
“Not only do I not understand how we sanctify anything, this also sounds to me like the church should wage culture war over substantive cultural product but not the trivial.”
Well duh Zrim. The local Redeemer pres.(keller wanna be) only does a transforming culture seminar focused on fine art, Jazz and classical music. Only the highbrow stuff is worth redeeming. It also helps your transforming cred. if you’re white, upper middle class to wealthy but still have ‘associates’ and acquaintances who are minorities that you ‘help out’. This is boiler plate kinda stuff, where you been?
LikeLike
I told you guys I did not want to turn this into a 2k debate. I really do agree completely with Jed in what he said – I have no hidden agendas. You guys are going in a completely different direction which I’m happy to discuss at a later time – after I’ve read DVD.
LikeLike
Don, Jed’s a homeboy and all, but I’d much rather see agreement with DVD instead of dissing. Until then, what you say is under heavy scrutiny.
LikeLike
Sean, I’ve been watching Six Feet Under and Breaking Bad.
LikeLike
Well that explains a lot Zrim,
You need to work on ‘renewing your mind’ instead of being conformed into the image of this world. Six feet under has that guy in it who likes to blood let on that other unspeakable channel. Or at least that’s what someone told me. Unless you’re working on how to ‘incarnate’ with your neighbor, I have no idea how you can justify such leisure activities. I’ll pray for you.
LikeLike
Michael/Don:
Because Vanderbilt is a private institution, there is no First Amendment issue. Period. No further analysis is needed. Private institutions are generally free to discriminate all they like, as long as their actions do not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Would you be making the same arguments if Wheaton refused to recognize a chapter of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)?
LikeLike
Isn’t it a fair point to make that if the university allows the exclusivity of the Greek system, it should allow exclusivity elsewhere? I don’t deny Vanderbilt has the right to
Be inconsistent, given it’s private status, but surely it’s a justice issue. You know, capital J Justice. It seems unethical, at least, to allow depraved institutions such as fraternities and sororities but not allow a harmless Christian group to choose their own leaders.
LikeLike
OK, Bob, no state actor so no constitutional issue. Having said that, they are apparently following the blue print of a case the Christian Legal Society lost under a constitutional analysis. Then, the “all comers” phrase you see tossed around is a notion that has significance in free exercise cases.
I’m really not too agitated about this. The Christian Legal Society I remember had the vibe of a IVCF group; it’s nice to meet the other attenders but the actitivies themselves were not difference makers. We had the anomaly of a Mormon joining us, which made us wonder but we didn’t do a parachurch excommunication.
Then I tend towards a free market analysis here. Let students and their parents look at all the pluses and minuses of Vanderbilt and decide whether they want to go there, and let Vanderbilt decide whether it likes the student body it is attracting as a result of its policies.
LikeLike
Alex,
Fair point. But Vanderbilt would probably argue that there are practical considerations that support allowing Greek organizations to be all male or all female.
The same is not true for evangelical organizations. In this electoral season, evangelicals have been pretty ham-fisted in their rhetoric on issues such as women’s rights and gay rights. Most non-evangelicals aren’t going to look too deeply to try to find a difference between Gary Bauer and an IV chapter at Vanderbilt. Evangelicalism, in its post 1960s form, is widely viewed as a sociological phenomenon whose main purpose is to provide a vehicle for engaging in the Culture Wars.
LikeLike
Alexander, capital J-justice? How about lowering the stakes and merely call it inconsistent or even a tad arbitrary. No one is dying over this, or worse, having to pay more taxes.
LikeLike
Sorry dgh- that comment was intended to be somewhat arch. I wasn’t referring to God’s Justice- the only true justice- but that vague, amorphous justice.
LikeLike