Filibuster

To employ an artificial and overly-lengthy process in an attempt to stall or block a possible political outcome.

0
The Australian reported a confected life insurance policy crisis. Photo: Flickr, Pictures of Money

News Ltd columnist Jamie Walker recently reported a confected new crisis between assisted dying law reform and the Australian life insurance industry. It's a triple-sham argument as I reveal.

Last Friday, The Australian columnist Jamie Walker delivered a shrill pitch against assisted dying titled “insurers baulk at ‘suicide cover’ as SA debates euthanasia.” In it he reported that legalisation of assisted dying would “force a showdown with the $28 billion life insurance industry” and would be “disastrous for the industry.”

Such was the article’s hyperbole that it seemed the legalisation of assisted dying might single-handedly lead to the collapse of a massive section of the national economy.

The fall guy for the argument was the current South Australian (SA) Voluntary Euthanasia Bill. Section 28 of the Bill prohibits insurers from excluding a life policy payout for an insured person who dies under the Bill’s voluntary euthanasia provisions.

Mr Walker’s article argued that such an exclusion would be in conflict with Commonwealth law. (Section 228 of the Life Insurance Act 1995 (Commonwealth), which is not named in the article, expressly permits exclusion of suicide cover from life insurance policies.) In the article, Financial Services Council (FSC) CEO Sally Loane refers to Section 109 of the Constitution of Australia which rules that Commonwealth law prevails over State law when there is any conflict between the two.

If these points were all the relevant facts, then the SA Bill’s insurance exclusion clause would simply fail to be of any force or effect and the world would keep turning as before.

But they aren’t all the facts.

Section 28 of the SA Bill states that insurance policies may not exclude a payout in relation to ‘voluntary euthanasia.’ However, the Commonwealth Life Insurance Act is completely silent on the matter of voluntary euthanasia: it permits policy exclusion only in respect of ‘suicide.’

Further, Section 23 of the SA Bill expressly states that a death under its provisions is not a suicide, and may not be determined as such even by the Coroner.

Consequently, there is no actual ‘suicide’ conflict in law. Indeed, a similar ‘not a suicide’ provision has stood in Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (DWDA) since 1997 with no crisis — or even ripple — in the USA insurance industry.

So much for the spectacular “showdown.”

The ‘suicide’ argument not only fails in law, but in practice as well. Most life insurance policies in Australia do in fact cover suicide, except for the first year of insurance. To avoid the creation of an insurance policy with the intention of a payout claim by suicide, most Australian policies exclude suicide for the first thirteen months. That extends across the first year of insurance plus a 30-day grace period to pay the renewal premium.

Thus, most Australian life insurance policies cover suicide once a renewal premium has been paid.

And what effect would assisted dying coverage have on the life insurance industry? The Society of Actuaries has published a thorough analysis of the impact of Oregon’s DWDA on USA insurance companies. It calculated such a microscopic potential effect that it concluded there would be no “material impact on life insurance claim costs.”1

Therefore, even if one were to argue that the assisted death of a terminally ill individual — after careful consultation and deliberation — was ‘suicide,’ most Australian life insurance policies would still be due to pay out just as if the individual had died from what we usually refer to as suicide. Plus, it would have no material effect on insurers.

It was largely redundant then for the FSC to write to the South Australian Government to express ‘concern’ that the SA Bill doesn’t refer to a death under its provisions as ‘suicide,’ thereby subtly acknowledging that there was no ‘suicide conflict’ in law in the first place. (In fact it is a Private Member’s Bill, not a Government one.)

Such was its reaction, it would be hard to imagine that the FSC doesn’t already plan to instead try and persuade the Federal Parliament to add ‘assisted dying’ alongside ‘suicide’ as a permissible exclusion in Section 228 of the Life Insurance Act, even in the absence of significant benefit for insurers. If successful, Commonwealth law precedence would then protect insurer rights to expressly exclude life cover for assisted dying regardless of any State laws to the contrary.

But insurers would then be declaring to the Australian public, the overwhelming majority of whom want assisted dying choice legalised, that “we will pay out on the policy if you die in extremis from the horrific but ‘natural’ effects of your illness, or you are driven into pharmacological oblivion through terminal sedation until you die no matter long it takes, or you starve and dehydrate yourself to death by refusing all interventions and sustenance, but we will not pay out if you die a lawful, peaceful, physician-assisted death in the same circumstances.”

Good luck with the public relations exercise on that one.

In the meantime, Australians can see for themselves what a beat-up this report was: in the first instance concocting a pseudo-crisis about supposed conflicts in ‘suicide’ insurance law, in the second instance side-stepping the fact that most Australian life insurance policies currently cover suicide anyhow, and in the third instance ignoring independent analysis showing no significant effect for the life insurance industry after all.

What will be the next confected argument against assisted dying choice for Australians in untreatable extremis? Just wait for it.

This article was originally published in OnlineOpinion.

References

  1. Jaffe, JM 2016, 'An actuarial analysis of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act', Product Matters, Jul(104), pp. 23-25.

Share This Post:
0
Palliative Care Australia's position statement on assisted dying.

I’ve written previously about palliative care specialists trying to filibuster assisted dying law reform. In this F file, I reveal how Australia’s peak body for palliative care (PC), Palliative Care Australia (PCA), segues from a state of ignorance to its own filibuster that would stall assisted dying choice.

First up, let me say that I hold deep admiration for the generally excellent services PC specialists provide at the bedside. I believe that PC deserves strong support and good funding. The peak body’s leadership in regard to its stance on assisted dying, however, is of a dramatically lower calibre.

Revised policy statement

In PCA’s latest incarnation of its Position Statement on ‘Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide’,1 the organisation says that:

“Public discussion and policy development on issues related to euthanasia and physician assisted suicide should be informed by research. There is insufficient research into euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.” — Palliative Care Australia, Position Statement

One can only agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence. Of course public discussion and policy development should be informed by research wherever possible.

The filibuster

And there follows the filibuster rub — PCA unequivocally claims that there is insufficient research. The logical consequence of PCA's juxtaposition is that we ought to muzzle public discussion and policy development because, PCA alleges, there is insufficient research to inform it.

Certainly in terms of Australia there are only a handful of published studies into attitudes and practices. But assisted dying is illegal in Australia. There are very substantial ethical and legal issues when it comes to conducting research.

Who is PCA to claim "insufficient research"?

PCA is the peak body for PC, a specific discipline within medicine that represents (well-paid) doctors. It runs a staffed office in Fyshwick ACT, and is overseen by a Board and Executive. It has a key purpose of lobbying in the halls of power in the Federal Parliament, and, presumably on the basis of the statement above, has a goal of ensuring that government PC policy (and funding) is informed by research. You'd think it might have some resources and connections to go looking for some research evidence.

A revealing comparison

In comparison, I conduct my assisted dying law reform work on a completely pro-bono basis, as a single individual, in my spare time. I have a formal literature collection on end-of-life decision making, including assisted dying, of currently over six thousand articles. I’m not talking about mere opinion published in the media: I’m talking about articles published in professional journals and in official government and agency reports.

I just ran a quick check across my database, looking for items specifically in respect of assisted dying (not medical or palliative care in general) in the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon, where assisted dying has been legal for some time. Here’s what I found.

In respect of assisted dying the Netherlands I hold 366 journal articles and 25 official reports. For Belgium, I hold 152 journal articles and 11 official reports. And for Oregon I hold 144 journal articles and 32 official reports.

That’s a total of 662 journal articles and 68 official reports in respect of three lawful assisted dying jurisdictions. And that doesn’t count any holdings of book chapters, conference papers and the like. The journal article count will be somewhat overstated because a minority of journal papers are about more than one lawful jurisdiction (e.g. the Netherlands and Belgium). So let’s estimate that downwards to, say, a mere 400 journal articles.

That’s an abundance of evidence from and review about jurisdictions where assisted dying is legal. Could we always know more about assisted dying? Sure.

Double standards when it comes to evidence

We could also know a lot more about PC. I recently asked PCA for a simple but critical headline statistic — one you’d think was necessary to inform policy about PC resources and funding: “what proportion of Australians who experience a non-sudden death (i.e. deaths where PC might be relevant) actually receive PC?”

PCA kindly responded, but the answer in a nutshell was “we don’t know.”

But I wouldn't suggest for a moment that we muzzle “public discussion and policy development on issues related to PC” because the peak body hasn't done enough research to calculate (or even estimate) a fundamental policy-informing statistic.

Conclusion

The Australian community would be better served if PCA acquainted itself with the extensive available literature on assisted dying in lawful jurisdictions (as well as headline PC statistics), and dropped its inappropriate filibuster.

 

References

  1. Palliative Care Australia 2016, Euthanasia and physician assisted suicide: Position statement, viewed 1 Sep 2016, <http://palliativecare.org.au/download/2448/>.
Share This Post:
0

Yesterday in a prominent opinion piece in The Age newspaper,1 palliative care specialists argued that palliative care is imperfect and in need of an injection of funds. I agree on both counts.

Nurse Peter Hudson, and doctors Mark Boughey and Jennifer Philip of the Centre for Palliative Care argued that instead of assisted dying as recommended by the recent Victorian Parliament committee report, increased funding of palliative care is ‘the answer.’

Key arguments

Here are the highlights of their opinion piece:
  1. They refer to assisted dying, a neutral expression now in common use amongst both lay commentators and scholars, as a euphemism. Instead they laboriously refer to assisted suicide (suicide is universally seen as a pejorative term with all its baggage about mental illness and substance abuse), and euthanasia (consistently omitting the qualifier ‘voluntary’).
  2. Dying at home should not be the gold standard (despite the great majority preferring it); instead, dying in hospital can be ‘preferred.’
  3. In a profound lack of self-reflection or consistent logic, they say that assisted dying ought to remain outlawed because its outcomes are uncertain. Even assuming the premise of the statement, this would be an identical argument to ban palliative care, whose outcomes are at least equally if not considerably more uncertain.
  4. They falsely imply that users of assisted dying not infrequently experience “very unfavourable” reactions to the drugs. This is simply untrue and I challenge them to provide the empirical evidence that they state is so very important.
  5. Tellingly, they describe a peaceful assisted death as “sanitised,” signalling their intrinsic disapproval of other’s choices.
  6. They say that focus should remain on increased resourcing of palliative care, failing to mention that the Parliamentary committee’s report indeed recommended increases in palliative care funding and improvement of evidence-based practice. Overseas evidence also reveals improvements in palliative care in jurisdictions with assisted dying legislation. There’s no false dichotomy between palliative care and assisted dying as the authors try to insinuate.
  7. They assume that medical interventionism (what they have to offer) is the correct and normative response, ignoring the fact that some people simply don’t want more interventions.
 

The filibuster

In a journal article recently published by two of the opinion piece authors,2 and repeated in principle in the Centre’s submission to and appearance before the Parliamentary inquiry,3,4 they say that:

“Increased resources and effort must be directed toward training, research, community engagement, and ensuring adequate resourcing for palliative care to benefit many before further consideration is given to allocating resources into legalising EAS to respond to the requests of a few.”

Notice two things about their recommendation—the filibuster.

Maximising what cannot be done

Firstly, they say we must not just ban assisted dying, but that it is dangerous even to talk about it: palliative care must be improved even “before further consideration is given.” The specific purpose of this part of the filibuster is to maximise what cannot be done: to position even mere conversation, let alone actual reform, as ‘unsafe.’

Maximising the delay

Secondly, nowhere in their argument do they provide a single quantitative metric (and which they strongly argue is necessary for the legalisation of assisted dying) by which the palliative care reforms they advocate might be judged: not a single dollar amount nor a single performance benchmark amongst their many recommendations.

How much will reforms cost, how long will they take, and what performance measure improvements would need to be achieved for the expenditure to be judged effective? What performance measures would need to be reached before it was then ‘safe’ to even consider assisted dying? The authors are entirely mute on these critical matters, while making precisely these evidential demands of assisted dying.

So, the opinionists’ argument allows them to indefinitely say that “more improvements are needed in palliative care before we even talk about assisted dying,” because further ‘improvements’ are always possible.

But all that was a ruse anyhow

In any case, the authors say in their submission to the Parliamentary inquiry that there are numerous problems (spurious, I argue) with legalising assisted dying; that they doubt they could be overcome; and then finally “it should not be construed that we would support the legalisation of EAS if efforts were made to address [the problems].”4, page 6 (Curiously, they omit the third, critical statement from their more public opinion piece.)

This truly exposes the classic filibuster… an open-ended call with no metrics, which therefore can be deemed never to have been met. How convenient. But, even if they were met, the authors still wouldn’t support reform. This begs the question:

If the authors are as so firmly evidence-based—as they take pains to emphasise—why would they not support a reform if the evidence endorsed it?

There must be something other than evidence that drives their entrenched opposition to assisted dying: something so important that it renders all their previous arguments null and void. What might that be?

Who are these people, anyway?

It’s informative to answer the question of who these three from the Centre for Palliative Care are. The Centre sounds like a neutral government body. It isn’t. Don’t get me wrong. I have no doubt that these three are skilled and compassionate practitioners and that the Centre delivers good services.

In reality the Center is a section of Melbourne’s St Vincent’s Hospital. That’s an organisation that proudly states “as a Catholic healthcare service we bring God’s love to those in need through the healing ministry of Jesus.”

I believe St V’s to be a high-quality healthcare institution, but too bad if the patient just wants evidence-based medical care and not the ‘healing ministry’ of a religious figure they may not subscribe to.

The reason this is important is this: what the three authors say about assisted dying is entirely consistent with the Vatican’s stance. I have no idea if any of the authors are Catholic, but what would be entirely surprising is if they published anything at odds with the views of the Vatican given their Centre is deeply embedded within the largest Catholic health and aged care service provider in the country.

For clarity and fairness, I once again place on the public record that I am agnostic.

The ‘Catholic card’

Before Messers Paul Russell, Alex Schadenberg and others leap onto their campaigning steeds to megaphone that I’m ‘playing the Catholic card’ (just wait for it!), let me be clear that I specifically am doing precisely that. For sure, The Catholic Church is not the only religious body resolutely opposed to anyone having the choice of assisted dying, but it’s the premier one.

And, Messers Russell et al would be absolutely right to point out that the authors didn’t raise a single religious argument, so let me save them the bother.

Religious opposition dressed up in secular garb

And that’s the point. It’s abundantly clear from multiple sources that religious opponents have actively decided that they will absolutely avoid using religious arguments because they know it will lose them the debate.

Media identity Andrew Denton’s Better Off Dead podcast series makes this avoidance abundantly clear from the Australian perspective. His insights, having attended a global anti-euthanasia conference in Adelaide, are important and revealing. 

From the North American perspective, a study just published by Associate Professor Ari Gandsman of the University of Ottawa in Death Studies5 reports uncanny North American similarities. Assisted dying opponents have actively decided to cease using religious arguments. Instead, their objective is to create an atmosphere of FUD: fear, uncertainty and doubt. It is only this now, they agree amongst themselves, that will keep assisted dying off the statute books. As Gandsman explains (and I paraphrase), religious opponents have moved from ‘it’s a sin’ to ‘but think about all the perceived risks!’

Again, I reiterate that the three opinion piece authors are likely to be fine nurses and doctors (I have never met any of them), but I do say that their incoherent and self-contradictory arguments against assisted dying, remaining opposed even ‘if’ the evidence for it stacks up, is neither their finest work, nor varies one iota from the religious anchor that the Vatican provides to their Centre’s services.

The importance of mutual respect

If a person says to me “I believe assisted dying is wrong,” I respect that view and admire their resolution. For themselves. Including if it is underpinned by religious belief. If you believe that assisted dying, or surrogacy, or other contentious issue is wrong, don’t participate in it. 

But don’t expect that your own view of your own God trumps everyone else’s God—or lack thereof. In Australia for example, the majority of citizens are not Catholic. And most of those who are—three out of four—disagree with the Vatican’s opposition to assisted dying. The Vatican’s view then is not particularly relevant to anyone but its most ardent adherents.

Respect in both directions is warranted but is rather lacking from the more religious end. My argument is not against Catholicism itself. There are very fine Catholics on both sides of the debate, doing their best to live a deliberatively ‘good’ life.

Conclusion

We can do without the incoherent and indefensible nonsense advanced in secular garb by the religiously opposed.

Be clear folks: the FUD campaign is on its last legs. I will be further exposing rubbish arguments posed by those with religious connections but couched in non-religious language.

In the meantime you can see the clumsy, failed attempt at a filibuster by these three opinionists for what it is.

 

References

  1. Hudson, P., Boughey, M. & Philip, J., 2016, Victoria's proposed euthanasia laws are flawed, Melbourne: Fairfax Media, Accessed 21 Jun 2016, http://www.theage.com.au/comment/victorias-proposed-euthanasia-laws-are-flawed-20160620-gpn9p2.html
  2. Hudson, P., Hudson, R., Philip, J., Boughey, M., Kelly, B. & Hertogh, C., 2015, Legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia: Pragmatic implications for palliative care, Palliative and Supportive Care, 13(5), 1399-1409.
  3. Hudson, P., 2015, Inquiry into end of life choices: Submission 905 to the Parliament of Victoria, Centre for Palliative Care, St Vincent’s Hospital, Melbourne.
  4. Hudson, P., Boughey, M. and Philip, J., 2016, Witness Appearance Transcript: Inquiry into end-of-life choices - Centre for Palliative Care, Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, 24 Feb.
  5. Gandsman, A., 2016,“A recipe for elder abuse:” From sin to risk in anti-euthanasia activism. Death Studies, In press.
Share This Post:
0
Dr William Toffler (left) acknowledges no slippery slope cause-and-effect evidence, with Drs Bentz and Stevens

A new scholarly journal focused on end-of-life ethics, decision-making and practice has just been launched: the Journal of Assisted Dying. In the first article, claims by Oregon lobby group Physicians for Compassionate Care (PCC), including Doctors Bill (William) Toffler and Ken Stevens (and others) are assessed against empirical evidence and found to be completely wrong, or highly misleading as a result of selective use of data.

The new scholarly journal, the Journal of Assisted Dying, is dedicated to careful and holistic analysis of evidence in regard to the various forms of assisted dying that are lawful in a number of jurisdictions around the world... and to practices in jurisdictions where assisted dying remains illegal.

In the first article of a series on Oregon, I examine claims and speculations made by various doctors (and others who quote them), that Oregon has the second-highest suicide rate in the USA (or is always in the top 10), that Oregon's Death With Dignity Act has resulted a massive increase in the state's general suicide rate, and other astonishing statements.

Of course, the empirical evidence from the Oregon Health Authority and from the USA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not support these statements and interpretations, and I analyse and critique the evidence.

Some of the claims are just plain factually and hugely wrong. Others are the result of failing to read their sources more carefully, misunderstanding what the data actually represents. Still further claims are made on the basis of selectively-chosen statements from government reports, while omitting statements that are contrary to, or provide alternative and well-researched explanations for Oregon's recently rising general suicide rate.

Drs Toffler and Stevens have even published some of their claims and speculations in the British Medical Journal.1 It goes to show that even good journals sometimes publish bunkum:  their article was a letter to the editor rather than peer-reviewed research. Great care is required to sort real evidence from hype and opinion.

Ultimately, Dr Bill Toffler of PCC has acknowledged on video that there is no cause-and-effect evidence between Oregon's Death With Dignity Act and Oregon's suicide rate, an acknowledgement that went unchallenged by his two PCC colleagues present at the time, Dr Ken Stevens and Dr Chuck (Charles) Bentz. You can see Dr Toffler's statement here (at 10'50").

The Journal of Assisted Dying is an open-access journal, and you can read the full article here.

-----

1. Toffler, WL & Stevens, K 2015, 'Re: Assisted dying: law and practice around the world', BMJ, vol. 351, 19 Aug, p. h4481.


Share This Post:

Physician use of misinformation to speculate 'assisted dying suicide contagion' in Oregon


Author(s)

Neil Francis

Journal

Journal of Assisted Dying, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–6.

Abstract

Background: Several physicians have speculated that Oregon’s general suicide rate is evidence of suicide contagion as a result of Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act (‘the Act’).
Methods: Search and analysis of physician and related online sources of Oregon suicide contagion speculation; retrieval and analysis of cited Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other publications relied upon; analysis of authoritative, public Government mortality data for Oregon and other USA states.
Results: Several physicians have speculated about Oregon suicide statistics in a manner that is not supported by the cited publications, or by public CDC mortality database data. The claims variously (a) misrepresent key data in the publications, (b) omit information in the publications that is at variance with suicide contagion speculation, and (c) overlook other significant information at variance with speculation. The physicians have previously acknowledged inability to prove perceived “slippery slope” effects of the Act. Other opponents of the Act have republished the physicians’ erroneous information.
Conclusions: Evidence advanced by several physicians to speculate that Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act causes suicide contagion in Oregon is variously false, misleading or highly selective—omitting key facts—and has arisen even though the physicians acknowledge they have no proof of ‘slippery slope’ effects.

Article keywords

suicide contagion, copycat suicide, Werther effect, slippery slope, misinformation, Oregon, Dr William Toffler, Dr Kenneth Stevens, Physicians for Compassionate Care

Full PDF

Download the full PDF: Download the full article (390Kb)

Citation

Francis, N 2016, 'Physician use of misinformation to speculate 'assisted dying suicide contagion' in Oregon', Journal of Assisted Dying, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-6.

Download the citation in RIS format: RIS.gif


Share This Post:

Bulldust is often advanced by opponents of assisted dying law reform—a reform which most citizens want—to scare or bamboozle us against the reform.

Why is there so much misinformation about? The answer is straightforward: because so far it's worked.

More than academic niceties

This isn't just an academic argument about getting the facts right. It's a fundamental battle between different world views, where misinformation against assisted dying law reform has often held sway. Here are just two real examples:

Examples of real impacts of misinformation

  1. In Australia, in every Parliamentary debate over an assisted dying Bill before them, numbers of opposed politicians have quoted the rhetorical sham "the vulnerable will be at risk" (see why it's a sham here). With the exception of the Northern Territory's Rights of the Terminally Ill Act in 1996, every Bill before Australian Parliaments has been lost or filibustered until the end of the Parliamentary term on this fearmongering. And the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was annulled by the Federal Parliament in 1997 on the same grounds.
     
  2. In Ireland, the High Court made a determination as to whether Marie Fleming, with advanced multiple sclerosis, was constitutionally allowed to receive assisted dying (Fleming v. Ireland and Ors 2012 10589 P). The court rejected Fleming's claim, saying that the "strikingly high" rates of non-voluntary euthanasia in Switzerland, Netherlands and Belgium "speaks for itself as to the risks involved". But sound research shows that the rates in these countries are similar to rates in other countries without assisted dying laws: evidence of the high degree of 'evidential' bull that was served up to their Honours.

It's time to stop the bull in its tracks

DyingForChoice.com believes it's time for the bull, the misinformation, to stop. It is unacceptable for rational citizens to be denied freedoms on the basis of scaremongering and erroneous information. This is the purpose of the F files. It provides citizens, politicians, policy advisors, healthcare workers, media professionals, researchers and others the evidence, arguments and resources to be properly informed and to avoid misinformation.

 

The F Files

Share This Page:

The F files
 

The public conversation about assisted dying law reform has been influenced by misinformation from opponents for far too long. Often, misinformation is simply given in ignorance, but sometimes not. It is mandatory that a conversation as important as assisted dying for those suffering at the end of life is informed by accurate information and evidential and reasoned views. Arguments that deceive or attempt to shut down the conversation have no place.

Whether misinformation is Fearmongering, Filibuster, Flip-flop, Flapdoodle, Fudge, or Fiction or Faith, the F files identifies misinformation and those who are providing it.

You can help by sending records of misinformation claims to us, and asking claimants to correct the errors.

 

Fundamental forms of misinformation

fearmongering.jpg      

Fearmonger

Represent something as considerably more sinister or dangerous than it is when judged by objective criteria.

filibuster.jpg  

Filibuster

Artificial and overly-lengthy process used in an attempt to stall or block a political outcome.

flip-flop.jpg  

Flip-flop

Multiple inconsistent or opposed arguments used to justify a position.

flapdoodle.jpg  

Flapdoodle

An argument that superficially seems intuitively attractive, true or real, but is in fact meaningless or nonsensical.

fudge.jpg  

Fudge

Unscientific analysis (e.g. selective data) used to support an argument that is not supported by proper, full analysis.

fiction.jpg  

Fiction

A thing that is untrue, or invented or feigned by imagination with no sound or verifiable evidence.

faith.jpg  

Faith

An argument that all others should adhere to a particular religion's values, tenets and rules.

 

Share This Page:
Subscribe to RSS - Filibuster