Notes From Off Center

under our skin: a review

Drew Tatusko — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:58:51 +0000

As someone diagnosed with Lyme only after my primary care physician telling me that my fatigue, mental fog, and that big rash that marked the beginning of a definite shift in my physical and cognitive stamina and strength was not Lyme, I found a specialist. In one particular test we found visual evidence of bartonella. So I am quite biased towards the view that the "accepted" diagnosis and treatment guidelines from the IDSA and the CDC are inherently flawed. If I and my physician had followed those guidelines, I would likely be in treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome and we would never have found the co-infection.

As the standard line goes, long term antibiotic treatments with something like doxycycline are toxic and therefore dangerous if done over the long term. Yet strangely, one with acne problems can go to a dermatologist and take tetracycline (which is of a similar molecular structure) to get rid of zits and do so over years, even decades. Those doctors are not pursued by insurance companies and medical boards for wreck-less practice, yet doctors who risk their careers to heal victims of Lyme disease are pursued and put out of business.

Under Our Skin focuses primarily on the controversy between those doctors who believe that Lyme Disease can become a chronic illness if not aggressively treated for often several years and those who think that these doctors are putting their patients at risk, patients who are accused of psychosomatic issues that take on the term "Lyme" as an imaginary ghost disease. This film strikes a balance between the technical aspects of the disease in how it is transmitted, the controversies over its treatment, and the political battles that have raged between different philosophies regarding diagnosis and treatment. With a lean towards the chronic Lyme diagnosis as the correct one despite its marginalization from "mainstream" medicine, the film presents top voices from both sides in a rather compelling balance.

What anchors the technical information and the political struggle are the stories of Lyme sufferers who exhibit very different traits. Some stories are heartbreaking as children and adults look like they are in the midst of battles with MS or Parkinson's. Others have far less visible effects and suffer all the while looking quite well. By the way, some MS patients feel present in the same way. By and large, the film lets you decide which side of the debate is the most reasoned one. One side says that there is an infection that persists. The other insists it does not. The film follows patients as they undergo treatments. They go from debilitating cognitive and physical functioning to what can only be described as "normal" by the second or third year of their long term treatment. By the end, any rational person deciding between the two sides must decide with the marginalized and criminalized group of physicians who are working tirelessly on the hypothesis that Lyme is a chronic illness that takes a long series of aggressive treatments to heal.

Two things were missing. The first is that we follow one patient through her treatments and notice that she gets worse to a life-threatening degree before she gets better. The film does not explain why this is so. While we that the bacteria, which look like so many little corkscrews called spirochetes, burrow into various tissues and so hide from antibodies, what would have been stronger is to explain why people get worse before they get better. The problem is called a "Jarisch-Herxheimer" reaction. As antibodies are infused in the bloodstream, resistances from the bacteria breakdown and they dislodge from various areas in the body. As this happens the infectious bacteria spread around even more before they die off. The later stage you are in Lyme, the worse these reactions will be. The reactions we see in the film are visceral strongly suggesting that early and aggressive long-term treatment is safer and results in less damage for many many reasons.

Second, while a small piece mentioned co-infections, what would have been more helpful is to briefly talk about these as well since it is often the co-infections which result in rather awful symptoms. Moreover, sometimes these co-infections are more difficult to get out of the body than the bacteria that causes Lyme disease.

If you do not walk out of this film questioning not only how and why diseases are diagnosed and the "recommended" treatments versus the opinions of those who live and breathe the disease and its various manifestations, you probably did not see the same film as I saw. As a sufferer of this disease I have learned how flawed our health system really is since it is primarily a money making industry, not a healing industry. This film reveals the severe damage that the deranged philosophy of healthcare-as-money maker cantruly inflict on those who need help rather than be marked as risks to drain the pockets of the corrupt.

fatigue

Drew Tatusko — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:59:31 +0000

In 2007 as I was planting a row of leland cyprus trees (which are now huge) to one day block out the massive truck sales operation right behind our house a little stowaway deer tick, or flea hopped on my forearm long enough to make a mess out of my life. I didn't feel the bite, but then again most people don't. I did get a nasty, ugly rash where the bite occurred. A week later I went to the ER where they gave me two weeks of doxycycline, the standard CDC approved treatment as a precaution since my blood tests came up negative.

I thought… cool! Lyme disease isn't really a disease, but a little nuisance like strep throat! They did not find borrelia burgdorferi which we call Lyme disease, but it was there, tucked under my cells like a wolverine measuring its prey. I was wrong as are most physicians and people who have a range of misconceptions and bad information about what this nasty little organism is and what it does. It plays with your body like microscopic leeches that hook up to your blood cells and tissues. So even if you feel ok after a good round of antibiotics, these little guys tend to come back, play with your body like a marionette, and then go undetected by our standard cookie cutter blood tests that only look for the antibodies the body produces to fight off infections.

They also have sometimes several tag along friends that join them. Ever heard the stereotype that the best friend of the hottest girl in school also happens to be the ugliest. If you think of Lyme as the hot topic, all of those ugly friends go even more undetected and are the root of more havoc and issues with the human body. My primary care physician did not recommend the specialist since he was 100% convinced I did not have Lyme. When he started talking chronic fatigued, I stopped listening. If my rash and my fatigue happened to be a duck, I would heard very loud quacking.

So I saw the specialist where I ended up having more blood than I can remember since I was very young when mono, mumps, and chicken pox decided to land on me at the same fricken' time. These were shipped out to a bout 4 different private lab facilities to run specialized tests that only a couple of these labs performed. I went on hard core antibiotics for another six weeks. At my follow up we looked at a picture of bartonella – the same bacteria that causes cat scratch fever and other serious issues.

I went on even more intense antibiotics and these punched me hard. So hard that at about week six of a 12 week treatment I could barely walk my feet and tendons hurt so bad – a side effect of taking levaquil. After this round of treatment, my body started to get back to where it was, and then it started to get better and better. I felt as good as I did before that damn tick bit me several months prior.

At a wellness visit after my treatments I told him I saw the specialist anyway. He said, "And they didn't find anything?" This was the specialist he recommended I not go to since I "did not have Lyme." I told he that we actually got a picture of one of the problems. His response was, "Well, that's why we have specialists." We had a picture. Photographic evidence! Take that Dr. Primary Care and all of your managed care FAIL!

But now I am about at a year after that treatment ended and I am consistently dizzy, chronically fatigued, fogged out in the brain, and no amount of sleep seems to allow me to get a handle on it. Time for another evaluation. Time to start filing eviction notices that my bacterial company are no longer welcome in my body.

The thing that bothers me is that if I did not have the cash money to pay for these treatments, no insurance company would flat the bill. There is a political debate between infectious disease professionals and the AMA and insurnace companies where one side insists that you can beat Lyme and all of its wicked little friends with more aggressive and lengthier treataments – costly treatments. The other side says that this is dangerous and experimental. I cannot wait for insurance to get their shit together to figure this out. I need to be aggressive to get this crap out my system. I know that being aggressive works, despite the short-term pain. Time to get my guns cleaned and loaded for another round to beat this thing – again.

I plan to go see the film Under Our Skin this weekend as inspiration to get on the horse and ride with the cavalry again. This film uncovers all of the politics and myths that make Lyme sufferers think they are crazy (as the system would rather them believe) and hopeless in their physical and mental misery. This is a political problem, not a medical one anymore. Stand up and fight it.

laundry harvests and word things for jesus

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 20:28:27 +0000

Words (or things, or word things) of wisdom.

If you are doing laundry in the love of God, you can get a harvest.
When you say words, you are actually releasing things.

Don't believe me?

Another notch in the tree of "why Christianity looks stupid."

lgbt = lg! b… and "t"?

Drew Tatusko — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:21:34 +0000

My wife and were watching a series of shows on trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons in various stages of their development. We talked a bit about the literal closet of flesh and bone that people of this sexual identity experience day-to-day. This got me to thinking how casually even gay and lesbian people add the "B" to the community acronym. More than that, I began to question how well even gay and lesbian people understand the social, biological, and psychological differences between those who are part of the "T" as compared to the other groups.

Is it really fair to lump all non-normative sexual identities in the same group? While all share some similarities in their social and political ostracism and isolation as illegitimate sexual identities who have illegitimate sexual relationships, those in the "T" group have a different set of concerns that are even more radical and different than the others. Many might think that trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons are "gay" people trapped in the "wrong" body. This is not the case. The best explanation is that you have a female or a male mind encased in the opposite sexed body. This is radically different.

Having a dual sexual preference or the experience of being a gender that the physical body does not match is very different from the experience of those who have an exclusive preference for a particular gender. Now while even this is a rough kind of conceptual characterization since, according at least to the Kinsey studies, all humans have more fluid sexual identities and preferences than society dictates one ought to have, it is a sound functional differentiation between rather different sexual identities. Even a bi-sexual has a different set of characteristics than gay, lesbian, or straight. But a trans-gendered or trans-sexual person has quite a different set of social issues and characteristics that are quite unique. The issue of embodiment for these two groups of people is far more radical than for anyone else. It is perhaps even more pronounced among Samoan fa'afafine, for instance, who are born male, but socially constructed to be females in order to meet social roles. In cultures such as these the freedom of the individual is subsumed and conditioned by the needs of the social network. Ironically, the fa'afafine therefore provide a certain degree of network closure in that society.

I wonder if we sort of lack a clear acknowledgment of the "T" in the acronym because we casually refer to them this way. It is not the case that just because that "T" is there that gays, lesbians, bisexuals, or straight friends of any of these groups of people will automatically accept trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons into their various communities. While we are in a set of pivotal and heated debates in theology and polity in the church to find ways to conditionally include, fully include, or systematically reject gays and lesbians from religious communities, I wonder how much discussion has been given to attend to the needs of trans-gendered and trans-sexuals.

To say that there is not a social stigma of taboo with these groups of people even where gays and lesbians are welcomed and accepted seems to miss quite a bit. It is perhaps a further sterilization especially in religious groups of the nature of sexual identity. While the focus of supporters of gays and lesbians to welcome and affirm their sexual identities focuses on human love and bonding, a wise discussion to be sure, we ought not sterilize it by removing the very real sexual relationships that people have with each other. Lesbians and gays have sex with each other in a lot of different ways as straight people do. Trans-gendered and trans-sexual people also have sex and often with straight people since they are not and have never been gay or lesbian. I wonder if there is a level of dishonesty here. That is to say, if you support and welcome the LG community, by including BT, do you know what you are saying? How well do your actions support trans-gendered and trans-sexual persons even if you are a full supporter of gay and lesbian inclusion and affirmation in your community?

a simple response jesus might have to american christianity today

Drew Tatusko — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:34:11 +0000

It is easier for a slave to become a rich person than for a rich person to become a slave.

Paul identified himself as a slave of Christ. So pumped up in haughty self-sufficiency, how can we expect Americans who do not struggle in the midst of existential insecurities to become slaves to someone who demands everything from followers? It's not the parts of us that are the simplest or most rational to give up that Jesus demands one give away to follow him. It's everything. It's every part of your soul, every part of your material comfort and being, every part of your mind, every part of your family, and everything that requires human beings to be attached to this world. Most of us do not have the conceptual framework to understand this even though many of us will give ample lip service to the calling that is required of those who presume to follow Jesus.

kindle, schmindle

Drew Tatusko — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:18:41 +0000

While I browsed Craigslist for bookshelves a couple of weeks ago my friend eagerly unpacked his Kindle. And just like that, a whole genre of furniture was put on the extinct list.

I imagine sometimes how the move from print to online will change the landscape of our lives. All that wall space we’ll have once the shelves are gone.

via Thanks to Kindle, it’s a strange new world | csmonitor.com.

Call me "old skool" but I like books. I like print. If it's really important I print it out or buy it. Why? So I can write on the page. But my love of books and paper goes a little bit deeper. Paper and print media are still the most flexible and durable of media for the written word. This is not by criteria of how easy it is for me to copy or manipulate the text, for that is surely easier to do with a digital image. At the machine level, that is translated into so many 1's and 0's floating around in different configurations to allow the modern bricoleur do what he or she wishes with a given digital object.

I am talking about a different kind of flexibility and durability that Kindle can't meet, at least yet. Until I can drop it, write on a "page", get a little sand in it, maybe even a little water, let it accidentally roast in the car, etc.; until it has the durability, flexibility and interactivity of a book, I will be sticking with my paper before going to plastic.

Wait, what was that you just said? Interactivity? You can't cross reference a page on the web, look for more information on a term, find related articles, etc. with a book! That's not the kind of interactivity I need when I pick up a book. I am talking about the kind of interactivity between my thoughts and the content on the page itself. I am talking about creating my own commentary in each book where I can record in permanent record of my thoughts and then go back each time to see how I read it at one point in my life. It has become a fantastic tool for self-reflection and diagnosis for how I understand things every time I pick up a volume, especially an important one, that I have read before.

Books have a social inventory with each person that picks it up and consumes it. The very subastance of the page retains the memory of its use. The same object takes on the characteristics of where it once travelled. I like sharing books I have read with others, even if those books have taken a mild dip in the bath or by the pool. I can buy used books at a fantastically cheap price. I love looking at shelves of books as well. To see the many spines that represent someone else's perspective on an aspect of living I have not experienced. A "file" just does not have this social depth for me. A file has no real memory encased in its fibres. It is sterile and virtual. It is a symbol of a throwaway culture that decides to suck content and then have it pass right through like a high fiber smoothie loaded with sugar.

Maybe I am a backward cynic who waits to see how the technology will actually meet my needs rather than create a new set of needs that exist just to complicate my life even more than it already is. I rue the day, however, when parents are downloading a book for their kids before bedtime rather than go to that shelf, pick out a ripped up book that has all the signs of love and happiness from another kid, even you the parent as a child. It seems sterile and bland.

So I have at least two books falling apart on my boys' bookshelves. I need to tape them up tonight. A couple are books that were already taped from my wife's extensive reading of them. These are objects that are symbolic of our social unit. They are part of the cultural identity we are creating as a family. They retain memory and give that memory to others. A file in a small plastic box cannot even come close to that social significance right now. And frankly, I don't care if it ever does.

choosing god is an absurdity that leads to a rational outcome

Drew Tatusko — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 22:44:59 +0000

Let's use this functional definition of deity or "god":

A sacred reality which is a reality that is fundamentally and substantively other than that which is constrained by the set of all cause and effect, yet actively engages in the set of all cause and effect in relationship to it.

In scientific terms, any object that is outside of the set of all cause and effect simply cannot exist. To posit such an object is for all intents and purposes absurd. Kant made this observation regarding how the human mind works, how reason functions, and the nature of God as that which cannot be known in terms of cause and effect relationships. God's existence is outside of space and time and anything outside of space and time is beyond the limits of reason.

This Kantian understanding of God is largely where the neo-atheists of today start off with their arguments contra the existence of God. Framed this way with these foundational criteria, there is no where for a believer in God to go. Any belief in God will never meet the criteria for rationality required here.

Of course, Kierkegaard went in a radically different direction. While after Kant, Hegel would posit the idealism of the unfolding of "spirit" through the necessity of history, Kierkegaard ran past Hegel's necessity to focus on choice. In this sense Kierkegaard re-grounds belief in God in the behavior of choice, but not by choosing what is most rational. Rather it is choosing what appears to be absurd only to find on the other side of the choce that it is the only rational outcome one could have made in the first place. Choosing God appears to be something very absurd, but it is in the end quite rational. The point is that one has to make the choice.

For Dawkins and others choosing God is absurd. It is also at the heart of what it means to be irrational and so, one ought not choose it. To that Kierkegaard would agree. However, not to choose the absurd in this case is not rational. This cannot be made through a rational argument, but ony through a leap of faith. It is only on the other side of that choice that we understand we have made a rational decision. Dawkins would consider this foolish to be sure. He is right from his point of view. But what seems to us to be foolish on his criteria of rationality may in fact be the best choice possible.

While many atheists will use the bible to say that God is evil, it is full of absurd tales of magic, rape, etc. The one bit that perhaps they cannot accept is that for most believers in God or in some sort of deity, that belief is ultimately rooted in the experience one has with that deity, or with that sacred reality – not on the sole basis of a text. Evidence shows that even among fundamentalists who appear to rely only on the bible for their faith (or a kind of interpretation of the bible) experience is what actually mediates that understanding of the bible. One side will determine this experience to be delusional and no amount of evidence can be convincing. It is the choice in the face of the absurd to believe in God that mediates the kind of belief one has. Many continue to make that choice on a regular basis. To them not making that choice is, ironically, something that would be evidence of irrational and irresponsible behavior.

podcasting… should i try it?

Drew Tatusko — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:43:09 +0000

I have no idea why it interests me but it does. Enough people seem to dig what I write here that a little branching out with another media format might be cool. I would want it to a bit looser than the content here which tends to be a little bit on the formal/academic side. The podcast would be a way to be conversational, a bit more sarcastic, a little more personal, and funnier.

One of my favorite late night talk shows is Chelsea Lately which is similar to what Jim Rome does on his radio show. People give humorous commentary on all things current. So, and maybe not all the time, I would try to make a sort of Religion & Ethics Newsweekly, but through the eyes of Chelsea Handler or Jim Rome (maybe more towards Colin Cowherd) if that makes sense.

Would something like that be interesting enough? Or, especially among those of you who know me "in the flesh" so to speak, what would be interesting to hear if you could? Y'all know what I sound like so you can be the judge if you could stand, or enjoy, the sound of my voice (which I cannot, but who likes the sound of their own voice anyway?).

Other ideas? What do you think I could contribute to what you would listen to that might be engaging?

I would post it here with yet another social networking tool, as well as make it available through iTunes.

dear atheist, why not god?

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:12:43 +0000

I cannot count how many times the equation has been made that since there is "not a shred of evidence" that God exists, people must be delusional who believe that such a God exists. My question to this is usually, What kind of evidence do you need to satisfy your taste for knowledge? That most people who have lived in human history have believed in some form of deity, many of whom claiming to have intimate experience with a deity, is not good enough. That is not evidence at all. The answer is that if God exists, we need to be able to put God to the same kind of testing we can accomplish with any other physical object. To make a believer out of an atheist with naturalist persuasions what is needed is some kind of magical demonstration that supports the hypothesis that a God exists. This is usually a God who can perform such magic on the known physical world by suspending the laws of science as we currently understand them.

Is this the only kind of knowledge that is reliable and/or reasonable? This is a sort of logical positivist argument that is rehashed over and over. Propositions about reality must be logically tied to each other and empirically provable. Why? On what basis is this so highly esteemed other than by an arbitrary and rather phantom understanding of reality? Do we really live our rational lives by this means? Is everything you do that is reasonable logically tied to something and empirically provable? And further, what kinds of empirical evidence pass muster here?

Physics, biology, and chemistry tend towards the place of prominence in this sort of questioning. Yet sociology is also scientific and rooted in empirical data. Psychology is the same way. If we look at the social sciences this is where odd judgments from the atheist naturalist come to play. These social-empirical judgments cannot really be tested since they are fundamentally non universal and not tied to specific objects other than people. So why is it that one is better than the other? Social sciences deal with such very different objects in reality and have such different rational processes in the course of an investigation that it is assumed they are inferior. Dawkins introduces new criteria for delusions because he believes the social sciences have given religion a "free pass." Perhaps this is because they are not the same kind of science Dawkins wishes they were? The humanities are even worse off. One kind of knowledge is judged to be superior here and no empirical test can prove it logically. This is a matter of taste.

This is what ne0-atheist assertions boil down to: taste. Values are shaped by far more sources than the kind of empiricism that many an atheist argument will level against the notion of God as a reality. While some concepts that prove to be powerful in the shape of our worldview such as love, it seems that it is reasonable to have these concepts and dispositions shape a worldview so long as there is an empirical object around which such concepts and dispositions form. So I can actually produce a physical object like my wife or kids to substantiate my feeling of love. But is it only the issue of whether or not there is an actual object? Can I love justice? Can I love compassion? Can I love peacefulness? Can I love the experience of my relationship with my family? Not the person mind you, the relationship itself. Do these concepts need to have some kind of empirical object for that love not to be "delusional"? Concepts like these depend on how one measures the term. Justice and compassion for one are likely to be different than for another. These are socially constituted terms that pack different social functions and meanings that are contextual for which we can only measure differences, set criteria, and then make predictions on human behavior from there. So are we then delusional to love justice or compassion?

On the one side is it only acceptable to rely on experience given that there are objects that meet some kind of universal criteria regulated by scientific discipline that are logically tied. It is only rational not to believe in God under that rubric. By another view, it does not seem all that rational not to believe in God given by such an arbitrary constraint imposed on what one can rationally experience in terms of those criteria alone. One will say "Why God?" and claim delusion. The other side says "Why not God?" and sees arbitrary limits on what humans are capable of understanding. Finding a deep connection in human experience that is constitutive of a reasonable worldview is not by necessity constrained to the atheist naturalistic criteria.

I happen to think the latter is more reasonable because we simply do not know why everything is the way it is, we may never be satisfied with our explanations, we may never come to any empirical conclusion about God or any sacred reality, and even science reveals on a progressive course that there is always something more to reality that we can currently perceive. It is the experience of a living God that makes sense of this progressive revelation of the very structure of reality in which we live, and are shaped.

if you object to homosexuality, at least be honest

Drew Tatusko — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:59:52 +0000

A tactic of many who oppose homosexual relationships is a twisted little sleight of hand where they enjoy their politically correct standing so as not to "offend" what is clearly an increasingly normative position in the prevailing culture. It is a sort of transference from their objection, condemnation, and judgment rendered that homosexuality is sinful, wrong, and worthy of hell or at least the destruction of society as we know it (or think we know). How it works is to say something like this:

I love homosexuals and welcome them into the church and have no problem with them in our society. However, marriage and sexuality is solely between a man and a woman and I stand by that.

This is a strange notion of love. I love you, but I reject the relationships that you desire. If you are heterosexual think for a second what this means. Would you in your right mind step into any organization that did not recognize the relationship you have with the person who is closest to your self as any human has ever been? Would you respect an organization that rejects the one to whom you have bonded yourself as "one flesh"? If the organization rejects your relationship, they are also rejecting you and your partner. So how then is this rejection…"love"? This is not an addiction, it is a relationship. The difference there is so obvious it's frankly stupid to debate.

The answer is that this is a conditional love. It is a love that can only be received if one meets certain social obligations in the ways that they conduct their self; in this case in terms of their relationality. Rather than bring up the debate of whether Jesus' love through his death and resurrection was unconditional or not (it must be conditional if you answer the question "yeah, but" which is a "no"), let's focus on people.

I have rather strong views on "what to do" with homosexuals. My answer is and always will be to love them as we do straight people, praise them for their successes and the beautiful children they raise, invite them without thought of sexuality into our communities, vote them into positions of political and economic power, let them marry, let them preach the Word of God to which they have been called by only God, etc. Most of all to stop calling homosexuals and trans-sexuals a "them." To hand over society to people regardless of sexual preference.

I am also a libertarian and I think that people who do not agree with homosexuality should be free to be hateful and express those views for the same freedom that should allow people to openly express their love for their partners and yes, have sex with them (gay people have sex and even orgasm!), is the same freedom that allows people to exercise their own prohibitions. I respect churches and religious people who cannot by their good conscience accept homosexuality within their social networks. I have a deeper respect for those with whom I can have a deep disagreement out the issue, but yet we can still understand that there is a struggle and a tension between love and purity. What counts is honesty and transparency in belief and the willingness to grow. That does not mean you have to capitualte to "my" understanding, but that one has the sense and awareness that they are incomplete and thus, so is their received understanding of God's revelation.

What I cannot tolerate is the "welcome but not affirm" attitude or Christians who say they "love" homosexuals and then behave with actions that are the polar opposite of love. On the one hand I understand that some with this disposition are working out a struggle and finding harmony between the idea of holiness in the abstract and the actions toward others that require acceptance. It is a tension. Admitting the struggle is fine. The problem is that saying that you love and then reject as you love looks very strange and frankly does not make sense (cue the alcoholism assertion which assumes that all homosexuals are destroying their lives which bears no evidence significantly different from minority heterosexual relationships – skip it). If you truly reject the relationship, the welcome you offer is a very shallow one to a homosexual couple. Stronger language would suggest that the "welcome" is a lie.

Cue the clip below which illustrates the case in point. In a clear act of transference and denial, the Sr. Pastor who clearly believes that homosexuality is demonic, also says that she apparently does not have a problem with homosexuality. It is not homosexuality, but the demon that incites that kind of behavior and thus the demon that is the source of rejection. She is lying or at least greatly misunderstands how her actions are indicative of her beliefs which are far from any notion of having no problem with homosexuals. Rather than say that she condemns homosexuality, she spins her wheels, goes for the politically correct, and pisses on homosexuals while telling us that it's raining. It's the lying I can't tolerate. Note how as she is pressed harder, she gets more frustrated. If she was honest to admit that she cannot really tolerate homosexuality, then let the court of public opinion render judgment, she might have peace. In the end all we get is absurdity and spiritual abuse as witnessed by the video.