posted
WoooooooooWWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!Thank goodness we don't allow six-shooters on this forum! I don't know about anyone else, but I actually broke out the popcorn to read these posts!!!!
Amka, If who have followed this post, you realize that I am no big fan of JohnL. On page 8 I took an unapologetic stand on some on his debate tactics. But I must take issue with what you said...
quote: That is one of the most religiously intolerant things I've heard, you bigot.
Dagonee asked a provoking question...
quote:What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
The nature of his question was provocative and begging for a response. Quite frankly I am surprised that JohnL managed to answer it so effectively with just two words.
You know I don't defend him being a "good guy." At best, I appreciate the intensity of his emotions.
quote:You condemed proxy baptism as a whole, and I'm defending that practice as a whole.
I agree. You have a lot of support, including mine, that this practice should continue as a whole. My opinion is that the only people who should be allowed to deny us this practice are living people leaving a will. I don't think anyone has the right to deny what we want to act out with the names of the dead--including members of the same religion or family.
Laws are designed to protect the living, not the dead. I would support a do-not-proxy list. I would see it as legally binding. What the Church did for the Jews was a gesture of good will for public relations, so they better honor their promise.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You ARE deliberately denying people's selfhood. You deny Paul's. You deny Rivka's. You deny John's. You deny Kayla's. You deny, deny, deny.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Woah - my question was turning around the question to show why proxy baptism can be offensive, because I believe it is doing just what the question states.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, it's not doing something TO someone, it's like leaving tickets for someone at the stadium box office, if they wants to see the game they can come and pick them up, if they don't want to see the game they can ignore the offer.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep saying that. But to Paul, it's like dragging him to the game and forcing him to become a fan.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cashew- How do you know? As has been explained, no other religious theology looks at death the same way mormon theology does.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cashew, it sounds like you're doing something to the person to me. Its quite possible I'm mistaken about Christian idealology but I thought baptizing someone made them Christian. I don't like the ancestor justification either. If my children become Mormon that doesn't mean I suddenly want to be a Mormon too. If I ever want to convert I'll do it in life. If I don't do it in life its because I still believe in my faith.
On a personal note I would be at least as upset if my parents were posthumously baptized as if a grave robber dug up my parents' graves.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Paul you're right, it's our unique theology (our 'universe', if you like, just like one designed by a science fiction writer,) so we have set the rules, and it functions according to those rules. It seems to me that the conflict comes when people who have other theologies, try to introduce their rules into our theology's rules. It doesn't work. We 'know' the condition of the dead because it's our theology. You 'know' the condition of your dead because your theology has set the rules about that too. The things that you say happen to your dead when we do proxy work are irrelevant to our theology, because ours says that doesn't happen, just as what we do is irrelavant/unnecessary/ineffectual in your theology. Never the twain will meet.
Posts: 867 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They do meet, however, in the fact you are taking action, an action that can have effect under other people's rules, against someone who doesn't live under your rules.
That is, under my rules, baptism by proxy might have a negative effect on my soul.
[ April 14, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, and my point is that you're doing something permanent to ME, so it should be MY choice whether you do it or not...and if, during life, I chose not to (and anyone who hasn't taken baptism in north or south america, or in europe in the past 1500 years has to be considered someone who actively chose not to take baptism) then that choice should be respected after my death.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Me: But it hurts me in a general sense, it offends my religious/atheist beliefs.
Mormon Person: But how are you PERSONALLY HARMED?
Me: Yes, it cheapens the the ideal of myreligion/atheism/religious-freeddom and makes it harder for me to raise my children in accordance with my beliefs.
Edited to add: My views do not represent those of the Jewish faith.
posted
What amazes me is that both sides are using the same arguments, and not seeing it.
Rabbit, if I read many of your posts without knowledge that you are Mormon, I would have *sworn* you were arguing *against* proxy baptisms.
quote:If you find that to disrespectful and offensive. Tough. It is you who needs to learn more tolerance for other peoples beliefs, not I.
Um, whose side are you on? That's exactly what the other side has been saying to *you*.
quote:But religious tolerance demands that we respect individuals rights to practice their own religions even when we find their beliefs offensive.
Darn right. So, respect rivka's rights to practice her own religion in her own way, without doing things in the name of her ancestors.
quote:Isn't it atleast as disrespectful and intolerant to insist that Mormons change their religious practices because they are different than yours?
So, is this saying that proxy baptisms *are* disrespectful? You are saying "at least as"... meaning the first is disrespectful. There is parallelism here, both sides arguing the same thing again.
quote:You are suggesting that it is unethical for me to follow my own religious beliefs and instead, I should follow yours?
Um, this could have been said by *any* person on this board, on either side of the issue.
quote:Paul is asking that I lead my life according to his belief system rather than my own -- that is intolerance.
Now, if Paul was Mormon, and the speaker was not, this sentence would still work.
quote:If you find it offensive that I respect God and what I understand to be his will more than I respect the requests and beliefs of other individuals, then yes this is an offensive practice.
Rivka could have said this with reference to her own religious beliefs, respecting them over the requests and beliefs of Mormon individuals.
quote:Paul, You are angry because Mormons are violating your religious beliefs but at the same time you are asking us to violate our religious beliefs. Can't you see the irony in that?
Rabbit, can't you see the irony? Flip it around. You're angry that people are asking you to violate your religious beliefs, but at the same time asking them to allow you to violate theirs.
quote:However, the most basic exercise of faith is to follow God's commandments when we do not fully understand why he has given them.
And many people are following different commandments, from a different religious standpoint. This statement could, again, have been said by either side in this debate.
quote:It is simply your belief versus mine.
Said many times on both sides. Unfortunately, the *actor* side of this, the side that's actually on the offensive, the side that's performing a ritual, that's actively engaging in some activity with the spirit... that side is the Mormon side. The other faction in this debate is wholly defensive, wishing that their opponent would *stop* trying to violate their beliefs.
So, in belief v. belief, I'd say the aggressor is at fault. (see: Crusades, Inquisition, Reconquista, etc, etc)
quote:What you seem to be unable to understand, is that for us this is a very sacred, beautiful, and selfless practice. Your continued insults are hurtful to us.
Again, you're arguing for the other side. People belief that their own funerary practices are sacred, beautiful and selfless... and proxy baptism is a continued insult. And hurtful.
quote:I'm sorry but I simply can't see a "do not proxy" list as anything other than a "respect our wishes above what you believe to be the commandments of God". What could possibly more arrogant and intolerant than to demand that members of another religion follow your wishes rather than their own beliefs.
This is the capper. Dagonee even used your own words right back at you, though you did not respond. Simply replace the words "a do not proxy list" with "proxy baptisms", and you'll see that you're again using the other side's ammunition.
Please, Rabbit. Listen to yourself. You'll have a better understanding of the other side, if you simply understood your own arguments.
*********
Now, here's a proposal for all the Mormons who have been posting.
Create a "do not proxy" list (bear with me). From what I gather, the Mormons will have a thousand years during the Millenium, after Jesus has established his kingdom again on earth, to directly communicate with the dead and proxy baptise the ones who are willing.
Wouldn't a "do not proxy" list make this Millenium period easier? You'd know *exactly* who to find and talk to during Millenium.
And, in the mean time, your proxy baptisms would be far more effecient because time wouldn't be wasted on those likely to reject your efforts. You could focus your efforts on those most likely to accept, and thereby make the whole process more streamlined.
Go for the undecideds now. Go for the anti-proxy types during Millenium, when they've had more time to think it over.
Make sense, or no?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I admit ignorance. But note my summary of the argument was not a representation of Jewish objection.
My problem with posthumous baptisms is that it shows a certain level of arrogance that is unhealthy in a society that supposedly cherish religious freedom.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't understand how we are denying peoples "selfhood".
The baptism for the dead is simply an offer. We are saying "I know you never asked for this, you may even have expressly said you did not want it, but if you ever change your mind -- here it is, waiting for you."
Is it the simple idea that we believe people might someday change their mind that offends people so much? Is this the denial of "selfhood"?
From my perspective it is a greater denial of someones "selfhood" to suggest that they are incapable of ever changing, growing or developing in any way. My free will is the essence of myself. To suggest that I might somehow loose that ability to choose is to me the greatest denial of self.
Clearly you find my LDS beliefs to be wrong or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I would be insulted if you did not hold in your heart some hope that I might some day change those beliefs and offer me everything I might need to make that change. How is this so different from what Mormons are doing through baptisms for the dead. We believe that parts of what you believe are wrong, but we respect you enough to hope that some day those parts of your beliefs might change. Wouldn't it be more insulting if we believed you were wrong and would always be wrong and weren't even human enough to ever change your mind on anything important?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
RAbbit- Its denying self-determination because, under most of the theologies you are "offering" baptism to, you are not actually offering, but forcing baptism.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, you don't understand. Rabbit knows what's better for you, so you just have to grin and bear it.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, part of the problem is that Jewish belief holds that you don't have to be a Jew to go to heaven, you're judged not by your religion but by your actions in life. Consider that there are few Jewish conversions, and the ones that do happen happen because the person came to Judaism rather than Judaism coming to person, consider that there have never been an Jewish missionaries, consider in context what these things mean and why we as Jews consider your practice so incredibly offensive.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, this taking up a lot of time to keep up with.
I have a question for the Jewish hatrackers still reading this thread. From what I gleaned of Rivka's explenation of the Jewish afterlife, you are judged by your actions and the effect that they have. If someone does something in your name later on, it also counts for you. Rivka gave the example of setting up charities in people's name. I assume, since you are worried about negative effects as well, that doing bad things in someone's name has an effect as well. So for instance, if after Rivka's death, I go out and murder people and say I'm doing it for Rivka then Rivka gets punished as this is in a way, a result of her choices. Right?
Well that's not really my question, my question is, does the fact that everyone involved in the proxy baptsim think that they're only offering the person a choice make it different than if they actually thought they were baptising them, without choice, into the faith? What I'm saying is, it seems that the action itself does not inherintly contain any power in the Jewish belief system, the only part that matters is that someone is specifically being named so that now the act has a name of someone for which it's consequences to be put on. Since the act itself is designed, and carried out in the spirit of giving choice, and assuming that this choice has already been made as much as possible against accepting by that person, the act would then not have a negative effect?
posted
Excuse me Paul, But why should any other religion be able to define what our ceremonies mean? Are you suggesting that there is some higher power that will enforce the baptism for the dead, even if the Mormon's are completely wrong? Do you really believe that God would say, "You didn't want this baptism, I didn't want this baptism -- but these people did it and so your immortal soul is damned?"
I'm sorry but that makes no sense to me. To me their are only two logical possibilities. Either the Mormon's are right and God wants us to do these baptisms -- in which case our belief that these are only offered and not forced should be accepted. Or, Mormon's are wrong, these baptisms are unneccessary, God doesn't recognize them and they are a waste of our time.
If you believe that God has not given Mormons the authority and responsibility to perform these baptisms and is offended by them, but none the less considers them in effect for people who did not desire them. Then you believe in a God who does not respect the individual. It is as if you are saying to me -- you must respect my individuality because God does not.
I must be missing something here because none of this makes any sense to me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, I don't think Mormonism is wrong. I don't think it's right either. It has about equal probability of both, in my mind.
And, for the most part, I have great respect for members of the LDS church. From what I understand of their beliefs, they are admirable and worthy of emulation (if not conversion, )
My only concern is when the bounds of religious belief begin to extend *outside* the self.
I don't think it's healthy for religion to be anything other than a connection between your own self, your God, and the community of other people who share that same connection.
When the beliefs begin to extend to those *outside* the faith, I get squeemish. I don't like proselytization - by any faith. It makes me uncomfortable when people say they will pray for me. It makes me sad when people try to change me, either aggressively or passively, to their system of belief. And it unnerves me when people tell me they will do something in my name after I die that I don't exactly want them to do.
I mean, donate money to some save the tigers foundation in my name? Awesome. Establish a gifted and talented school for those kids wallowing in our current progressive heterogeneously grouped monstrosity of an education system? Even better. Create a youth program that helps underprivelidged kids develop caring in education and value in learning? Fantastic.
Kick a dog? Please don't. Build a church? Again, rather you didn't. Give me a tombstone with angels and crosses on it? Ugh, no. Establish an Independence Day movie fan club? Dig me up and mutilate my body first. Baptise someone in my name? Again, rather you wouldn't.
Are these deeply held religious convictions? Nope.
Do I think a religion oversteps its bounds when it starts taking actions in the name of those outside its domain? Yep.
I liked the credit card analogy John made a while back. Some said it's like offering a credit card to you. I see it in a more sinister light.
It's like stealing my identity, charging up a whole bunch of baptism on my credit card pretending to be me, then leaving me to either resolve the bill or declare bankruptcy. Either way, you've ruined my credit or my financial stability.
I'd rather you didn't.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
John L, Have the courtesy to read what I say before you insult me. I have said explicitly that I never claim to know what is better for anyone else. Evidently you find it incomprehensible that someone might do something for other than the motives you impute. If you are not willing to try to understand my beliefs and position but are simply here to throw insults at me --- please excuse yourself from the discussion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, the first paragraph could be debated for days on end by Talmudic scholars with no result.
The problems with the ritual is that is just plain offensive and insulting and I supposed you might need a Jewish POV to truly understand why that is the case, but just because you don't understand the POV doesn't mean you shouldn't take it into consideration. Also certain actions can be permanently damaging to a person. For example mutilation to a body is considered permanent damage and that is piercings and tatooes are forbidden. In the same way this Mormon posthumous baptism can be considered permanent damage to a person's soul.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one, Rabbit, you're missing that very large post above directly addressed to you.
Physician, heal thyself.
Read your own words as though someone else spoke them. Feel the reactions and irony and contradiction in your words as you expect others to see in their own.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, you're asking someone who doesn't have the same beliefs as you play by the rules of your belief, no matter what their own beliefs are.
Actually, it's kinda funny the way all the LDS here have been putting it, because it reminds me of those in a previous thread on racism who said that minorities have all the same rights as the majority, as long as they play by the majority's rules. Not saying that this makes LDS racist (because, all you wannabe writers and English majors out there, "bigoted" does not equal "racist," "Nazi," "KKK," or even "ignorant"), but it does show the obvious one-sided-ness of the approach and refusal to actually come to a compromise. After all, they're right, everyone else is wrong, and that is enough justification.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Its denying self-determination because, under most of the theologies you are "offering" baptism to, you are not actually offering, but forcing baptism.
Most theologies? Care to name a few?
quote:Are you suggesting that there is some higher power that will enforce the baptism for the dead, even if the Mormon's are completely wrong?
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. He's using the most illogical of scenarios to try to prove that we're wrong, because any other scenario doesn't support his argument.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have said explicitly that I never claim to know what is better for anyone else.
And yet I quoted you actually saying it. Oh, except that's not what you meant to say? Then why has it been done for people those who were performing it never even knew? For their own good? If not, then why? Why assume they haven't already made the right decision?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amusing that Rabbit, so widely respected (and often disagreed-with by me), is accused here of a blind spot because she's not thinking THE WAY YOU THINK SHE SHOULD THINK.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm trying ot to John. I recognize that my beliefs aren't Jewish. I'm not quite sure where I screwed up there.
If you meant the part where I said "has no power besides..." I just meant that in the Jewish religion I thought that the baptismal rite as preformed by LDSs has no special power inherintly. I then go on to say that the way in which it does have power would be that someone's name is specifically being invocked and thus the words are attributing themselves to this person. My question was if in Judaic beliefs, the fact that the intention was not to baptise into the faith, only to offer have an effect or if only the outward words spoken matter.
posted
And incidentally, bigoted is a word that CANNOT be willingly used without a comparison to, among others, Nazis and the KKK. You're not kidding anyone, John. Ask people tomorrow what word they'd use to describe Nazis or the KKK, and see how soon 'bigot' comes up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problems with the ritual is that is just plain offensive and insulting and I supposed you might need a Jewish POV to truly understand why that is the case, but just because you don't understand the POV doesn't mean you shouldn't take it into consideration.
I do, and I'm with Amka and others on this that I would not baptise those who requested I didn't, or break that contract the Church agreed to. What I'm trying to do here is understand, which seems like a decent thing to do...
[EDIT: however great the word "wich" is, I think it may have been a bit confusing. ]
posted
A Jewish friend made a donation in my daughter's name to a charity I don't agree with, but I was okay with it.
If doctors, or even nuns, were baptizing babies on the sly, we'd figure it was of no effect.
Though ironically, due to the "more the merrier" attitude toward proxy work name extraction, I think we wind up baptizing quite a few infants on our own. Which is still an abomination.
I believe the system has to be better organized before any further "do not baptize" agreements could be considered.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the "dcotor baptizing babies" thing, I would be werided out that the Doctor felt it was necessary that he take time away from carring for my child and others to baptize my child, however, if you mean actual effects, no I wouldn't be offended by it, or worried about the eternal consequnces since I don't believe that the doctor would have the power to baptize my child.
quote:Though ironically, due to the "more the merrier" attitude toward proxy work name extraction, I think we wind up baptizing quite a few infants on our own. Which is still an abomination.
Um, except that we don't believe that they stay infants in the spirit world.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not that you screwed anything up, Hobbes. It's that you are approaching trying to understand where those opposed are coming from while still working under the theological rules of your own faith. In other words, you're not trying to understand Judaism from the perspective of a Jew, you're not trying to understand any other beliefs from the perspective of their beliefs, because you still start from "even though I believe..."
It would probably feel very much like trying to talk to a schizophrenic and understand why they are seeing a purple mouse sitting on the table, when you "know" there is no purple mouse there. Lots of people do it from their beliefs, I've sure as heck done it myself before regarding many things. The trick is, you'll never understand why it's so damaging and insulting unless you do.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Catholicism officially has stopped saying non Catholics will go to hell because theology finally admitted that we, as human, can't judge other humans or know just what god's will is.
And no longer are unbaptized infants said to go to Limbo as a result.
So there'd be no pressing need to baptize babies on the sly.
And a lay person (doctors, nuns, etc) wouldn't baptize unless a dire emergency--such as someone on their deathbed REQUESTING it.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
What do you want from us? Do you want us to stop all proxy baptisms? Do you want us to go to great lengths to make sure that we don't do it for anyone who didn't want it (or probably wouldn't want it)? Do you simply want us to say, "Yeah, we realize that lots of people find it offensive, and we're sorry for that, but we think it's more important to obey God"? Something else?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And incidentally, bigoted is a word that CANNOT be willingly used without a comparison to, among others, Nazis and the KKK. You're not kidding anyone, John. Ask people tomorrow what word they'd use to describe Nazis or the KKK, and see how soon 'bigot' comes up.
And now I understand the reasoning behind everyone's misunderstanding here when I use that. Allow me to make it clear: I DO NOT EQUATE THE WORD "BIGOT" TO NAZIS OR KKK, AND ASSUMING I DO IS YOUR MISTAKE, AS I'VE STATED REPEATEDLY.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, pooka, I think you're probably right. I'll admit that I'm really not sure what the doctrine is in that scenario, but if you say that's what it is, I'll believe you (until someone more authoritative contradicts you, anyway ).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Various people want various things, Jon Boy. Just as various Mormons are willing to make various concessions. None of us is any more authorized to have the final say than Hatch and Clinton. Okay, I guess this thread is officially hopeless. If I check in again, I give any of you authority to give me a wedgie (Hatch and Clinton excluded)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Question for John L, Paul Goldner, et al:"
What I would PREFER is you only baptize people by proxy who never had a chance at baptism.
What I think is realistic is that you keep doing what you're doing, and respect our right to think you are self-centered arrogant jerks, and that what you do is HIGHLY offensive, and possibly dangerous.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stalling Cow, Your explanation is very reasonable and I understand your aversion to "proselyting" more than you could ever imagine. But consider the other side for a moment. If I heard a rumor that some business would be handing out $1000 checks to everyone who showed up at a 10 am friday -- wouldn't you want me tell you about it? Even if you didn't believe the rumor, wouldn't you rather have the chance to disbelieve it rather than never being told? If I didn't tell you and the rumor turned out to be true, wouldn't you be at least a wee bit peeved at me for not giving you the chance to get the money.
Religions that proselyte believe that they have information that is far more valuable than money. They believe that it would be selfish not to share the information.
My natural response to JW on my door step or born agains handing out tracts on campus tends to be irritation. But as long as they are respectful and avoid coercive tactics, I believe my natural response is wrong. They have good intentions and I need to respect that they are simply trying to share what they believe is a priceless message.
If I try to physically drag you to the business at the appointed hour to get the $1000, it would be more than fair for you to object. But if I simply said to you on my way our the door "Are you sure you don't want to come?, Here is the address in case you change your mind?" It would be awfully petty for you to take offense.
Religious tolerance means that we respect others rights to practice their religion even when their practices and beliefs are contrary to ours. To me, that means that I should not take offense from religions who believe it is their duty to spread the good news so long as they do it in a respectful and not coercive fashion. Anything else would be intolerant of their religious belief.
Of course should have its limits. If someone religious practices cause some clearly demonstrable harm, like murdering babies or poisoning wells, or interfering with others freedoms of conscience, then my opinion would be different. In my eyes, however, tolerating others right to share their ideas is the absolute minimum of what should be expected in a free society.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Hi there. I've been posting. Maybe I post in invisible text.
::jumps up and down for attention::
What are your thoughts on the "do not proxy baptize until Millenium" list? Or am I totally misconstruing the concept of Millenium?
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Okay, I guess this thread is officially hopeless. If I check in again, I give any of you authority to give me a wedgie (Hatch and Clinton excluded)
