The Scathing Atheist - ScathingAtheist 185: RFRA Madness Edition

Episode Date: September 1, 2016

In this week’s episode, France caves on the Burkini thing, just like they did with the Nazis, we learn that Donald Trump is the healthiest man in the world, but still gets to leave school after 3rd period, and Andrew Torrez from the Opening Arguments podcast joins us for the least expensive conversation with a lawyer I’ve ever had. Click Here to make a per episode donation at Patreon.com Click Here to buy our book. Click Here to check out The Skepticrat. Click Here to check out God Awful Movies. Guest Links: Click Here to check out the Opening Arguments Podcast with Andrew Torrez and Thomas Smith Appearance Links: Mythinformation Conference in Milwaukee: http://www.mythicistmilwaukee.com/mythinformation-conference-2/ QED Conference: https://qedcon.org/ Skeptics in the Pub in Glasgow: https://www.facebook.com/events/1107910115950581/ Skeptics in the Pub in Edinburgh: https://www.facebook.com/events/982928985138532/ Headlines: Religious charity refuses to take atheists’ money: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/26/28280-later-an-atheist-has-ended-his-fundraiser-for-a-christian-charity-that-wont-take-his-cash/ Defense Attorney: Polygamist fugitive may have been raptured: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/25/polygamist-leader-and-fugitive-lyle-jeffs-may-have-been-raptured-says-his-defense-attorney/ Burkini ban struck down in one French town: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/26/burkini-ban-struck-down-in-one-french-town-but-the-anti-muslim-bigotry-persists-in-others/ Christian fired for vandalism after ‘anointing’ office loses discrimination suit: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/25/christian-man-fired-after-vandalizing-office-with-oil-to-anoint-it-loses-discrimination-case/ Trump’s donation “to LA flood victims” actually goes to anti-gay hate group: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2016/08/trump-donates-100k-to-anti-gay-hate-group/ Trump letter: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/08/bornstein-trump-linguistics/497840/ This Week in Misogyny: Indian Court grants women right to worship in famous mosque: http://religionnews.com/2016/08/27/indian-court-gives-women-entry-to-mumbai-mosque/ CA lawmakers close Brock Turner loophole: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/california-lawmakers-pass-rape-bill-inspired-by-stanford-case/ Catholic hospital turns away bleeding woman because they ‘don’t support birth control’ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/08/27/catholic-hospital-turns-away-bleeding-woman-with-dislodged-iud-because-they-oppose-birth-control/

Êtes-vous prêt à magasiner? La Semaine des super-remises de Rakuten est de retour. C'est un festival d'économie avec jusqu'à 15 % de remise en argent dans vos magasins préférés. Profitez de remise en argent dans les magasins comme Le Nouveau, Expedia.ca et Dyson. Vous découvrirez ce que les autres acheteurs savent déjà. Rakuten est le meilleur moyen d'économiser. La Semaine des super-remises se déroule du 7 au 14 mai. Inscrivez-vous aujourd'hui gratuitement et obtenez un bonus de 5 $.

Visitez Rakuten.ca ou téléchargez l'application Rakuten dès aujourd'hui. R-A-K-U-T-E-N Warning, the following podcast contains profanity and full frontal nudity. This week's episode of The Scathing Atheist is brought to you by Ken Ham's

new educational arc park attraction for kids, the Adams Apple Circus. Bring your whole public school science class and come learn about how humans, dinosaurs, and primordial ooze

all lived together in harmony when life began 6,000 years ago. It's only $28 for admission plus a couple hundred thousand dollars

to pay the FFRF lawyers. The Adam's Apple Circus. The greatest show on young earth and now the scathing atheist hi this is anna here to tell you that we did in fact evolve from filthy It's Thursday. It's September 1st. And I just learned how much fun it is to yell at kids to get off my lawn. I'm old now. Yes, yes you are.

I'm no illusions. I'm Heath Enright, and from Secret Lair, Pennsylvania, this is The Scathing Atheist. On this week's episode, France caves on the burkini thing just like they did with the Nazis. We learn that Donald Trump is the healthiest man in the world, but still gets to leave school after third period. So not fair. And Andrew Torres from the Opening Arguments podcast joins us for the least expensive conversation with a lawyer that I've ever had. But first, the diatribe. I guess I can see how people get suckered in by the whole destiny thing.

You know, I mean, in a sense, it's true, right? If I had a computer the size of the universe and Laplace's demon doing data entry, I could have predicted 40 years ago or 100 that a thing called podcasting would now exist and that I'd be using it to tell dick jokes about Jesus for a living. I don't want to wade too deep into the murky philosophical waters of determinism here, but I'm sure we can all at least agree that the person I was at 20 informs the person I am at 40. Yeah, like, take my present circumstances, right? I'm pretty damn happy with where I am in life. I got a great marriage. I do what I love for a living. I'm able to dedicate my time to a cause that I believe in. I work with my best friends. Things are going pretty good for me. And of course, now is an inevitable consequence of then. So it's really easy to look back and see the various trials and downtimes in my life as necessary gauntlets to get to the place that I wanted to be to achieve my destiny. gauntlets to get to the place that I wanted to be, to achieve my destiny.

You know, in retrospect, the narrative just pops right out, and if you can imagine your way into a narrative, pretty easy to imagine your way into a narrator. I mean, in so many ways, it all adds up, right? That which didn't kill me did make me stronger, and the strengths that I gained when I was at the bottom of my life turned into the skills that I needed to get back up to the top. For example, in order to make this whole podcasting for a living thing work, I had to be really fucking poor for a couple years. When I lost my job, I had a choice as to whether to dedicate myself to this show full time or take a normal job with paychecks and stuff. Fortunately, I have a lot of experience being broke, so it wasn't an impossibility for me. I had plenty of experience living in shithole places and juggling the bills based on which utility is closest to being shut off. If I hadn't worked my way through that kind of poverty before, I probably would have been scared off by it and wouldn't have been able to give this show a serious go. And of course, if I were a religious person, it'd be really easy to look back on all of that as a trial that God was putting me through to prepare me for the first couple years of podcasting, right? I could look

back on all those unanswered prayers for prosperity and say, you know what? God knew I was going to have to get used to being poor so that I could make all the sacrifices necessary to build something for myself. I could look back at all the temp jobs and shit apartments and disappointments and praise God for his wisdom since clearly he knew what I needed better than I did. Yeah, I mean, the impetus for going to this show full time was losing my job and not in an amicable way, right? If I were religious at the time, I'd have been begging God to fix it and give me my job back. But today I'd be looking back on it and thanking him for not giving in to my pleas back then. I needed to lose that job to do what I was destined to do, and God knew that. He opened the window when he slammed that door shut, and sure, my foot was in the doorway at the time, but that's okay because right now I'm happy.

And of course, like all religious thinking, this breaks apart with the lightest touch of critical thinking. I mean, after all, an omnipotent God could have gotten me where I am with a lot less bullshit and pain along the way, right? Could have given me a healthy inheritance so that I wouldn't have to piss away so many years at shitty jobs that I hated. Could have given me the Powerball numbers. Could have wrote, start a podcast in the clouds. But of course, my religious self would argue that then I wouldn't be me,

which would be true no matter who I was or what change you propose, rendering the explanation a completely circular statement, but whatever, it makes me feel special. And you know, when religious people talk about God giving their life meaning, this is usually what they're talking about. Chaos is a hard pill to swallow, and the idea that all the trials of your life are, on some level, on purpose, it's got to be damn comforting.

You know, sure, shit's tough right now, but Jesus must have had a good reason for running over your daughter's cat and giving your brother cancer. You're too feeble to understand it now, of course, but in time it'll all make sense. Just like all those financial troubles 10 years ago make sense for me now. And even non-believers will offer this shit up as a defense of theism sometimes, as though this is some harmless lie that people tell themselves. But you and I know better because we've had religious people try to apply this shit to us. You know, we've had religious people try to diminish our

suffering with platitudes about God's plan. And the egocentricity of this philosophy comes into religious people try to apply this shit to us. You know, we've had religious people try to diminish our suffering with platitudes about God's plan. And the egocentricity of this philosophy comes into damn sharp focus as soon as you start applying it to other people. Oh, God crippled that girl on purpose, huh? God gave that baby AIDS for a reason. When the omniscient creator of the universe

first conceived his grand scheme for humanity, he knew that in 2016, he was going to have to starve over 3 million children to death. But that was part of the plan from the beginning. In his wisdom, he decided to go ahead with it. See, it's really easy for me to retroactively apply a God-authored narrative to my life because I have a really good life. I grew up as a straight white cis dude in a wealthy industrialized nation with over a century of political stability. I got a decent education. I got decent health. I won the spousal lottery. Of fucking course I can look back over my life and

say, yep, God meant for this to happen. He looked at me before I was even born and he said, you deserve to live a freer and easier life than 99.99999% of all the humans that have ever lived. And it was probably because he knew that I was going to be so damn Christian and pious about it. You know, there's no way to read that philosophy without believing that you actually deserve the stuff that you got in life. It wasn't just random fortune of your birth. It was the will of fucking God. Now, atheists don't have that out, right? I know a series of really lucky turns got me where I am right now. And sure, there was hard work, but pretty much everybody works hard. If I was born in Nigeriaia i could work three times as hard at this and something tells me the atheist podcast still wouldn't be paying the bills you know i can't take credit for the successes in my life without

also admitting that the vast majority of the stuff that went into them was blind fucking luck which means that i can't ignore my obligation to the billions of people less fortunate than myself look if i was born in their situation with their genetics, I'd be them. There's no soul in me that God favored. There's just genetics and geography that happenstance favored. And what's more, my current state is temporary, and who the hell knows what chaotic turn my life might take tomorrow. God's not looking out for me. God's not looking out for you.

But luckily we know that, which is why we're looking out for each other. They're talking about you, Jesus. We interrupt this broadcast to bring you a special news bulletin. Joining me for headlines tonight is the winningest team owner in the history of the Fantasy Football League of Sinister Secularists, Heath Enright. Heath, are you ready to bore the fuck out of 92% of our audience with a little fantasy football talk?

No, I think that covered it. That was the important stuff. You want to do headlines instead then? Yeah, sounds good. All right, but before we get started, we're way overdue announcing the winner of our Jesus Haiku contest. If you'll recall, Mythicist Milwaukee reached out to us last month with two free tickets to the Myth Information Conference in October

and invited us to give them away as we saw fit. So we asked the listeners who were interested, of course, to send in a Jesus Haiku. Then we randomly selected from those entries and we were supposed to announce the winner last week. Well, actually a week before last. I remembered today, didn't I? No, I did.

Well, that's... So without further ado, the randomly selected winner of our haikumate who will receive two free tickets to the Myth Information Conference in Milwaukee featuring the long-anticipated mythicism debate between Bart Ehrman and Robert Price, is DM Weber. Congratulations. So, DM's haiku, which read, Jesus came from space to study the human race and we murdered

him, earned him a couple of free tickets. Congratulations, DM. And, of course, if you entered and didn't win, remember, we're not saying DM's haiku was better than yours, just that it was more randomly selected right right and of course you can still pick up non-free tickets by following the link on the show notes to this episode in our lead story tonight we finally have a news item about a religious group that only metaphorically fucks kids the murrow indian children's home in Muskogee, Oklahoma made headlines this week when they refused more than $25,000 in donations

solely because the money came from atheists. Idiots. A spokesman for the children's home seemed frustrated but assured Inspector Gadget that he'd get him next time. Okay, so what exactly do they think they're accomplishing with it? It's not like atheist donors

need to pull stockings over their heads and sneak the devil money in there. We'll get it in there. Apparently they do, though. They're trying to make sure that we do. So this story began when Matt Wilborn sent a $100 donation to the children's home on behalf of the Muskogee Atheist Community, which he and his wife co-founded. Within an hour of making that donation, Wilborn received a phone call telling him the charity was primarily funded by the American Baptist Churches Association and that taking his money would go against everything the charity believed in. In fact, they went so far as sending his $100 bill back via certified mail. So apparently they wanted rid of his evil devil money so bad they were willing to spend six and a half Jesusy dollars just to return it.

Okay. Well, if that's a repeatable transaction, and it sounds like it is, I think it's time for us to bankrupt a whole bunch of Christian groups and also help fund the U.S. Postal Service at the same time. Yeah, no, they could use the money. Yeah. Well, of course, you know how us atheists can get. We're all the time forcing children to have access to shelter, food, and medicine, whether their caregivers like it or not. So Wilbur decided to up the ante with a GoFundMe page

and encourage other atheists to help him find out exactly how much money this charity was willing to refuse. As it turns out, it was an awful fucking lot. All right, so by the time the Muskogee atheists shut down the page, they had raised a total of $28,280, and the children's homes still wouldn't take it. Okay, well, I mean, granted, Atheist money is full of mercury, and you know all those kids getting autism, but still, do we need to threaten them with all the, like, gay stuff we can buy with this money instead? We'll buy penis cake for Lucian Graves to to satan and pour milk over it if we have to

that might work that might work well for the record the bulk of the money is now going to go to the most excellent camp quest a secular summer camp that i hold in the highest regard that being said wilburn is still going to give money to the children's home reasoning that the kids the money would help shouldn't be punished for the bigotry of the charity so though he may have to get a local church to help him launder it he'll still be giving them five grand from the gofundme the original hundred bucks they refused and the 647 they spent to mail it back incidentally late breaking news in light of him saying this publicly the charity actually issued a statement saying that they were going to deny the donation from churches in the area too because now they know his plan so they're literally investing more

resources now in turning down this guy's money all right it's time to go thomas crown style everybody said i am spartacus five thousand however many dollars and in rapture's delight news fundamentalist mormon leader lyle jeffs is currently wanted by the FBI after he managed to remove his government-issued ankle monitor in June and go into hiding. This is presumably so he could avoid appearing in court to answer charges that include illegal use of child labor and millions of dollars in welfare fraud. But his lawyer, Catherine Nestor, maintains this whole thing might be totally innocent and offered two other possible explanations.

And those would be, one, a super convenient kidnapping, or two, divine rapture. Divine fucking rapture. That's right. The kidnapping thing was the more plausible explanation. I would love to hear what they rejected in that meeting.

You know? Y'all, who wrote Narnia again? I told you we ain't doing Narnia. He didn't gnaw off his fucking leg. They're not going to buy that he gnawed off his fucking leg. So, yeah. This is a real thing filed in real court by a real lawyer.

And whether or not Ms. Nestor, the lawyer, was joking, the following words actually appear on an official legal document in Utah. Quote, Mr. Jeffs is currently not available, whether his absence is based on absconding, as oft alleged by the government, or whether he was taken and secreted against his will or whether he experienced the miracle of rapture is unknown to counsel and quote. So just to review option a reality, but there are more options. There's a B and a C option B. He might be a fugitive hostage who was forced to flee even though that's really fucking helpful or option C he might be the one single human being that was taken to heaven by

God during this summer's rapture that nobody else heard about no but I think we haven't spent enough time on B here I can see a whole Guy Ritchie movie in it okay so you get a couple of guys that their job is to kidnap one and felons and wait for the reward money from the FBI to stack up a bunch of different wacky accents. It would be good. Very plausible. And I just want to reiterate, the more likely explanation she offers has about the same amount of plausibility as a Guy Ritchie movie. That's the takeaway from the paragraph I just offered there. Yeah, so this lawyer can't be certain that the god of the universe isn't a big fan of wealthy cult leaders with child slaves who steal food stamps from poor people.

He seems to be, though. That strikes me as his kind of thing. Fair. But just in case there's not a magical floating teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars for accused felons to hide on. Just in case that's fucking stupid. If anyone wants

to help out law enforcement officials, Lyle Jeffs is about six foot one, 210 pounds, and looks like the lumpy brother of a convicted pedophile.

He looks exactly like that. Yeah. That's all real. Just imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man got cast as the substitute teacher in a bad touch after school special. If you see something that looks like that, That's all real. Just imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man got cast as the substitute teacher in a Bad Touch after-school special. If you see something that looks like that, call the FBI.

And in Show Us Your Clavicle News tonight, we have a follow-up on the rising tide of French bigotry that Muslim women can only wade into if they dress appropriately. So in the wake of an international backlash against France's increasingly popular burkini bands, largely fueled by photos of a middle-aged woman being forced to publicly remove layers of clothing by armed police officers, France's highest administrative court has agreed to rule on the legality of the bans tomorrow. I mean, what if these women start doing like a reverse

bubble porn thing? I feel like stapling little circles of skin on the outside of the burkini. Would that fix it? Yeah, draw a burkini body. Yeah, okay. All right. I gotcha. Now, I did have a listener write in and explain some of the stated reasons for the ban that

aren't, you know, we hate Muslims and stuff. And I don't want to discount them altogether. There are safety concerns about swimming while dressed to extract radioactive material. There are cheap knockoff bikinis that shed in public pools, stuff like that. And I don't doubt that some of the people who are supporting this ban are doing so for those reasons but that being said a crackdown on unsafe bikinis would be the logical legislation if that was the real concern you know ultimately those are excuses for the law not justifications for it yeah and i've got a funny feeling that if like charlie day showed up at a

beach in france wearing his green man unitard with the head thing pulled out he wouldn't be confronted by police with assault rifles. Well, you know what? You know what? We're a company now, so we could go to France and buy unitards, and it would be a company expense just to find out. And in fears make the best lube news tonight, you're not allowed to vandalize your workplace with oil, even if you're a fucking lunatic who thinks that's a good idea.

Doesn't seem like this concept should require any legal expertise to hash out, but thanks to Christianity, it did. So the American taxpayers got to foot the bill for about two years of litigation on this topic, which finally ended earlier this month with some good news, actually. topic which finally ended earlier this month with some good news actually it was ruled in a u.s district court that you're definitely allowed to fire the vandalizing lunatic regardless of why he's a vandalizing lunatic and and here's how much christianity fucking sucks okay if you ask me to name 50 situations that would end in me getting fired for leaving my office covered in oil. All of them would be really fucking fun. Like worth losing your job over levels of fun. But because this was a Christian, it's boring and butt sexless.

Religion sucks. when a government office in Miami, Florida, had to temporarily shut down due to a series of cross-shaped oil smears all over the walls, doors, and cubicles. I could just see walking in that day. What the fuck was Frank doing? Well, yeah, it was Eric, not Frank. Oh, okay. Yeah, Brian, close enough. And when a Pentecostal employee named Eric Chilly, or Brian, admitted it was him, he got fired. Fucking obviously.

And ever since, he's been pursuing a wrongful termination suit, claiming he was acting on his sincerely held religious beliefs. Get ready for something ridiculous. His sincerely held religious beliefs that the office needed anointing to protect against evil satan magic well of course it did but uh it was finally decided by a federal judge uh that's fucking stupid and the case against the employer was dismissed earlier this month well and plus that place was still covered in satan magic so he probably fucked it up anyway that's work yeah exactly yeah so despite the absurdity of spending time and money

to figure this out, the final ruling here was refreshingly logical. Especially considering this Pentecostal maniac, based on those same sincerely held beliefs, could have just as easily been like

throwing venomous snakes over cubicles to help hone everyone's Jesus powers. That's another thing they sincerely believe. Oh, God, I wish I was psychopathic now. throwing venomous snakes over cubicles to help hone everyone's Jesus powers. That's another thing they sincerely believe. Oh, God, I wish I was psychopathic now. I mean, how fun would that be, right?

You just do your hair real nice, you button down, just go door to door asking people if they found Jesus, and if anybody says yes, you just toss a couple diamondbacks in their living room. You shouldn't have any problem with that, then, or Mark's full of shit. Use the magic, you'll be fine. So, yeah, bottom line, we can punish people for crimes even if they were christianing at the time of the incident that's good that's good not sure how rifra still exists since all it seems to do is directly contradict common sense rulings like this one but somehow it does if only we had some sort of legal

expert coming on in the c segment to discuss that matter perfect yeah now um i'm just spitballing here um maybe our legal expert said the same thing but maybe if there was some sort of i don't know supreme type of court we could finally lose all this nonsense or maybe like a like a national body of lawmakers that occasionally accomplishes a single thing like a law just a thought that's throwinges a single thing, like a law. Just a thought. That's a little crazy. I feel like if we had that supreme type of court,

you'd never be able to get an odd number of members. It'd be... Yeah, well, I mean, what are all the numbers? You got six, eight, ten, four. You could have four. No, no. And while I draft a quick company policy about where oil is and isn't allowed to be smeared in preparation for Eli's return, we'll take a quick break and hand things over to my lovely wife, Lucinda.

A man wrote the Bible? A whore is what she was. If it's a legitimate rape. A dangerous slut, right? Cooking can be fun. Hey, I'm proud of a man. This Week in Misogyny. You know, this could have been one of those rare good news weeks.

Now, when your subject matter is misogyny, you have to grade good news on a curve. I mean, I started off my list this week with a story about India granting women the right to worship in this famous mosque in Mumbai. I also had a story about the California legislature passing a bill that would close the loophole in rape laws that allows convicted rapists to get off with writing, I'll ask nicely on the chalkboard 50 times. And sure, you can spend this as Muslim women in India get to actively participate in their own repression now, and California legislature just realized rapists should go to jail, and that's no doubt how I would spin it. But it's still rare that I get to report on progress, however slight and overdue.

But as the week wore on and people started sending me more stories, my hopes for a good news segment were dashed. Because on Tuesday, astute listener Karen sent me a story out of Chicago that reminded me of the most terrifying trend in American religion. This is the story of Melanie Jones, and it starts with her bleeding and in pain. Earlier in the day, she slipped and fell in her bathroom

and subsequently dislodged her IUD. So she went to the doctor who confirmed that yes, her IUD had been dislodged, and, yes, it needed to come out, but the doctor didn't help her. In fact, no doctor in the entire facility would help her. And I'm not going to insult your intelligence with a rhetorical why wouldn't they help her to introduce my next point either, because you know good and damn well why they wouldn't help her.

Because homeless sperm makes the baby Jesus cry, and it was a Catholic fucking hospital. What's worse, all the nearby medical facilities covered by Jones's insurance plan were also Catholic. So still bleeding and in pain, Jones contacted the ACLU who had to tell her that in fact, yes, that's completely legal. Sorry, America is so American. You need to change your insurance provider. So she did. And five days later, the device was removed. Now, the hospital that originally turned her away eventually came out and said that they shouldn't have done that. Apparently, taking out a contraceptive device won't land them in hell. But the fact that more and more hospitals in this

country are being directed by clergy instead of medical professionals is terrifying, especially if you happen to belong to the gender all the religious restrictions target. The Catholic Health Association boasts over 600 hospitals in America out of less than 6,000 total. So if you walk into a random hospital, odds are better than one in 10 that a bishop is making health care choices for you. And if that doesn't scare the fuck out of you, you probably don't have a vagina. And with that, I'll hand things back over to Noah and Heath.

Thank you, Lucinda. And in flood libel news tonight, Republican presidential candidate and constipated Ernie Muppet in a nightmare, Donald Trump helped to ensure that Louisiana hate speech infrastructure would weather the flooding when he donated 100 grand to flood relief via an anti-gay hate group. Wow. Sorry, that's anti-gay, not anti-gray. The recipient of Trump's charity was the Greenwell Springs Baptist Church, whose interim pastor is none other than Tony Perkins.

Okay, well, first of all, if Trump hadn't been wasting all this time on clearly losing an election, he could have built that wall a long time ago he's just fucking around yeah but more importantly he managed to find a way to donate money to flood victims badly he fucked it up yes yeah he's like an accidental bond villain maybe minus the accident part it's really not clear well those are just the people he knows you know so now there is some disagreement in the mainstream press about whether this counts as giving money to a hate group, which, I mean, kind of want a decisive no on shit like that from your presidential candidates. But even if you set aside—

And it's decisive yes. Well, right, because even if you set aside one of America's leading bigots leading the congregation, the church's statement on marriage and sexuality reads in part, quote, statement on marriage and sexuality reads in part, quote, We believe that any form of sexual immorality, such as adultery, fornication, homosexuality, bisexual conduct, bestiality, incest, pornography, or any attempt to change one's sex is sinful and offensive to God. End quote. I'm just saying there's almost certainly a group doing flood relief that hasn't gone on the record equating L's, B's, G's and T's with puppy rapers. But Trump elected to go with the one that had.

He found him. And finally tonight from the I'm not sick, sick file. Donald Trump, despite looking like a halfway shucked ear of dried out leathery corn, claims to be in perfect health. claims to be in perfect health. Well, at least according to his so-called doctor's note, which got renewed media attention last week after Harold Bornstein, the doctor who allegedly wrote it, did an interview about it with NBC News. And considering the note reads like a kidnapper's ransom demand made of magazine cutout letters and sounds pretty much exactly like the

voice of donald trump and clearly not a doctor um plenty of unanswered questions remain despite any clarifications by mr bornstein which did not help by the way no not i mean you would have expected something a bit more professional and coherent from dr seuss yeah so uh here's a quick breakdown of the note that trump allegedly got from dr. Bornstein, who just for the record looks like James Lipton got shipwrecked on an island made of LSD. Oh, that's good. It begins with the phrase, quote, to whom my concern. To whom my concern. Not a great start.

Not a great start. Especially considering what comes next. This is my favorite part. especially considering what comes next. And this is my favorite part. It says, quote, Mr. Trump has had a recent complete medical examination that showed only positive results. Wait, what? Only positive results of his medical exams.

So apparently Trump has literally every illness that exists. And he's still alive. Or he's a fucking idiot who tried to forge a doctor's note right much like an eight year old with a bad report card and a crayon

oh and if you haven't seen this read it online it is exactly like a report card that contains the phrase smartest kid in the whole school

but misspelled I'm surprised the signature didn't look like it had been erased and rewritten several times this thing would have

been no less bizarre if the note measured his overall health and hit points by the way the letterhead had a dead person on it one of the doctors yes dead for five years anyway um continuing with a few more highlights the note goes on to tell us quote over the past 12 months mr trump has lost at least 15 pounds and quote at least 15 pounds. End quote. At least 15 pounds. I guess this particular doctor can only estimate weights within a range.

In this case, a range of about 200 pounds. It doesn't matter for health that you get shit exact. His white blood cell count is in the thousands. Right. The note also tells us,

quote, my his, his, his physical strength and stamina are amazing. No, wait, extraordinary. End quote. His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary.

And if anyone's not familiar with the medical terminology that just got used there, extraordinary strength and stamina when used by a doctor in this context means the Donald lasted for an entire song when they fucked. That's good to know. Extraordinary is only one step below astonishingly excellent, which is the actual phrase that this note used to describe

his test results. It said his test results were astonishingly excellent. Amazing. All A's on those. Finally, to close it out, the note says, quote, If elected, Mr. Trump will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency. End quote. What?

So apparently the 43 presidents in American history had nothing but ordinary or worse strength and stamina when they all fucked dr born so well and look and this just got worse when he was asked to clarify it later right he said and i quote i like that sentence to be quite honest with you and all the rest of them all the rest of the presidents are sick or dead end quote so his his medical assessment is that Donald Trump is significantly healthier than dead people and Obama. Not buying that, by the way. Okay, well, considering how well this doctor's note clearly worked out and considering Trump's level of appeal with the GOP's Christian voting base, I think it's probably time for him to release a similar note that documents all his religious credentials.

Oh, there you go. So he'll probably want to get in touch with a pastor, have that person write a 14 sentence letter, and then throw that letter away when he decides to write a new one himself. And we'd like to offer a few suggestions. Let's go ahead and put 30 seconds on the clock. Ideas for Donald Trump's religious cred pastor note that he's obviously going to forge himself. Okay. Go. All right.

After 20 years as Donald Trump's pastor, I can assure you the only way he'll wind up in hell is if St. Peter cheats. Yeah. Heaven's a swing state. It's very true. What about after running numerous tests? I can say with confidence that Mr. Trump is exquisitely hetero. Trust me. He'd be the Christianist president ever elected.

Ever. Ever. How about according to test results, in Trump's case, the Virgin Mary would have made an exception just this once about uh donald trump pretty much never covets his neighbor's wife most of his wives are foreigners so he couldn't they're not neighbors you're not supposed to do that either mary or to do the no but the first rule is the important one oh i got one i got one how about when trump is through with america he'll make Mexico pay the 50 shekels. What about, when Canaanites attend a Trump rally, they usually get knocked unconscious for just about exactly 48 hours.

Just like God intended. And of course, you got to throw this clarification in. How about, what he meant was that that one was his favorite Corinthians. Like the number one of all the Corinthians. How about, I like leaders who don't get crucified, saying Donald Trump would be better than Jesus. At least a little better, yeah. And, of course, we could go on if we had the astonishingly amazing stamina of a 70-year-old fat guy, but unfortunately we don't. So that's going to do it for the headlines.

Heath, thanks as always. Fantasy atheism. And when we come back, Andrew Torres from the Opening Arguments podcast will be here for the only discussion I've ever had with a lawyer that did not include the words, and where is the puppy now? I'm very happy to welcome my next guest to the show. Andrew Torres is the co-host of the Opening Arguments podcast, a topical legal podcast that breaks down legal news,

teaches us how to speak lawyerese, and tackles common misconceptions about the law. And he joins us today to discuss one of our favorite pieces of legislative malfuckery, RFRA. Andrew, welcome to The Scathing Atheist. Noah, thanks for having me on. Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I should tell the audience that in addition to hosting opening arguments with our good friend Thomas Smith, you're also a minority partner in this podcast, Parent Company Puzzle and a Thunderstorm, as well as its chief legal counsel. So as I understand it, you're not allowed to tell anybody what I ask you in this interview. Is that correct? As long

as you direct me not to, I can't. But if you say it's okay, it's okay. All right. I just want to make sure we got that all out of the way, because I'm going to ask some perverse fucking questions before this is out. Outstanding. I get very little of that on my home show. I do want to say

you've probably heard my standard disclaimer, but as we get into it, that you should not take legal advice from a podcast. This is for entertainment purposes only. It does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and the viewing audience. So with that out of the way. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what you get when you bring a lawyer on the show.

No, it's probably a good call. I'd like to think the listeners would know better. But I guess that now that we have all the disclaimers and stuff out of the way, we can talk about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And if you don't mind, I'd like to start with the name, because most of us weren't aware that religion ever went anywhere in the first place from which it would need to be restored. So what exactly is being restored with this legislation? Sure. So the story kind of begins in the early 1960s. And for most of our nation's history, I mean, most of the things that we think of as being landmark Supreme Court decisions, a couple of exceptions, obviously, really stem from the era 1962 to 1969, which is called the Warren Court after Chief Justice Earl Warren. And it was the court's liberal heyday in which the Supreme Court really began to fashion

real-world remedies from the Bill of Rights. So, for example, the Gideon v. Wainwright decision that guarantees you the right to an attorney if you are charged with a criminal offense. The Miranda v. Arizona decision, which if you've ever watched any cop show or law drama ever, you know, that is the you know, you have the right to remain silent. I would I just want to throw in here that I would love it if that was why I was familiar with Miranda rights. But yeah, no. But for most people, it's when you see cop shows. Top shows. Okay, excellent. Excellent. Most of our First Amendment law decisions, including one that I think is near and dear to all of our hearts, which is the Stanley it was right about this time that the Warren Court

really tackled the question of what does the First Amendment clause that says, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. What does that mean? And what the Warren Court came up with was essentially a series of decisions that says, if you have a neutral law of general applicability that burdens a minority religious practice, then the Constitution creates an implicit judicial exception to those laws, presuming that they can be reasonably accommodated. And there are really two kind of touchstone cases that arise out of this time period. The first is a case called Sherbert v. Verner, which had to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses who wanted to take Saturday off instead of Sunday. And the second is Wisconsin v. Yoder, which dealt with the Amish looking to pull their children out of public schools two years early at age 14 instead of age 16. And in both cases, the Supreme Court said, yeah, you know what?

Even though the general law says you're going to have to comply with it, we understand that there is a religious basis to seek an exemption to these laws, and we're going to allow it. And now this is something that I think atheists, I think reasonable people, regardless of your religious beliefs, can disagree about, right? Can disagree whether there should be any affirmative guarantees of the free exercise clause. But I actually think that at least the Sherbert case, which is to say, if you're giving your employees off on Sunday, you should give the ones who worship on Saturday off on Saturday instead. I actually think so long as that's practicable, that that's a reasonable accommodation for reasons that I think are going to become clear as we go on to talk about RFRA.

But that was the status of the law. And that was the status of the law from 1962 to 1990, when Antonin Scalia got his hands on his first amendment free expression decision. He's the villain in this story, too. He is the villain. You will find that he is a recurring villain if you are a fan of Supreme Court jurisprudence. And this is really a good example, because for 30 years, we knew what the law was, right? It might not be clear exactly how to interpret it in any particular circumstance. But generally speaking, we were aware that if you were a member of a minority religion, and there was a law that substantially burdened your religious beliefs, your religious practices, that you could probably seek a judicial determination that you were entitled to some sort of exception from the law. And that had real world consequences, because most cases don't go to the Supreme Court. Most cases don't get filed at all.

Most cases are resolved sort of at the HR and person to person level at your employer. Right. So if your employer is kind of generally aware, like, oh, yeah, yeah. Like Noah's a member of that goofy religion where they're off on Saturdays. Right. Let's let's accommodate him as opposed to. Nope, don't have to do anything about anybody's religion. You know, too bad that you belong to some oddball religion that's not mine. And so Scalia doesn't care at all about precedent.

Didn't, I should say, didn't care at all about precedent. Oh, he still doesn't, but yeah. And so for him, the only relevant question was, how do I achieve the outcome that I want and be able to work it into what I assume wouldheld the notion that the Free Exercise Clause provided for religious exemptions to generally applicable laws. Scalia said, I don't want them to. And so he got four other votes. And in a case called Employment Division v. Smith, which involved Native Americans in Arizona who had smoked peyote or consumed peyote. I'm not clear on how peyote is consumed. Maybe you can help me on this. You eat it, yeah.

Okay. It can be smoked, but it's kind of a waste of – you know what? I'll cut that in post. I have no idea, Andrew, what people do with peyote. I have no idea, Andrew, what people do with peyote. Who had consumed peyote during religious ceremonies in their off hours and were fired. And when they were seeking unemployment benefits, which is typically how these religious cases come about, were denied their unemployment benefits because they were terminated for using a class one controlled substance. And, you know, so so nothing to do with using it on the job or anything like that. And Scalia decided, yeah, it's it's about time that said, if a law is generally applicable and it burdens your religion too bad.

And seriously, that's what the case says. And so the Native American peyote consumers were tossed out of court with no remedy. tossed out of court with no remedy. And essentially, and I'm not being melodramatic here, that ends First Amendment Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. It is pointless. Again, don't take legal advice from a podcast, but it is pretty much pointless to try and sue under the Free Exercise Clause, given the standards that are set forth in Smith. So RFRA was passed in 1993 to explicitly restore the state of interpretation. And I'm going to have to clarify this because there's a weird procedural wrinkle, but essentially to overturn the Smith decision. The impulse behind it at the time sort of went something like this. Already, the law has accommodations for majority religions, right? And if you don't think that's the case, then I invite you to try and take a Sunday morning and invite a 14-year-old girl over to your house and give her some wine and find out how that works out for you, which, again, do not take legal

advice from a podcast. But no, like, that'll go terribly because we have a built-in exception. It doesn't even have to be written into the law that says, well, except for Catholic priests, right? Obviously, you can do that. And so the idea was, behind RFRA, was, look, the majority is going to be fine because the laws are going to reflect majority sentiment anyway. Who we're really losing out here are members of minority religions that used to be able to appeal to the First Amendment, and now they can't do that. And so that's what

was being restored. I know that's a super long answer, but sometimes the law requires super long answers. Right, right. No, but that's exactly what I was curious about. Okay, so yeah, because this law was passed unanimously through the House. It was passed by a democratically controlled Senate. It was signed by a Democratic president. So, you know, clearly the law has drifted quite a bit from its original meaning if we look at the way it's being used now. So as a way of sort of diving into that, can we talk about the actual wording of the law? What exactly does RFRA say? Sure.

And there are two things once you get to the second part, but it says, government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that they, one, that that burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and two, is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. So essentially, there's this three-part test. You say, does this law substantially burden your exercise of religion? If it does, then you move on and say, okay, is there a compelling governmental reason for doing so? And if so, is that compelling governmental reason the least restrictive way to achieve

that objective? And only if it meets all three of those is the law valid with respect to you. If it fails out in any one of those points, then you get an exception under RFR. Prior to the implementation section, and this is a little bit unique for legislation, there is actually a findings and purposes section for any lawyers that are out there. This is 42 U.S.C. section 2000 B.B. lowercase b. But in the purpose section, it says the purpose of this chapter of this law is to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner and Wisconsin v. Yoder, and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened, and to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.

So the law says we don't like Employment Division v. Smith. It also says that in one of the finding sections. And we want to go back to the way things were in the 1960s. So one of the few things that the U.S. Congress has ever been able to unanimously agree on is that Antonin Scalia was wrong in this decision. Right, right. Okay. That is exactly right.

And so the procedural wrinkle is that what Smith did was interpret the First Amendment. That's the baseline that applies to every person in the country as a constitutional claim, because you can always sue to vindicate your constitutional rights. What RFRA is, is a law. And so the law can't control the interpretation of the Constitution, but it can implicitly say, in every law going forward, we want that law to be interpreted in light of as if it contained a specific exemption for individuals in connection with the exercise of their religious beliefs. So that unique kind of twist, I think, is what has driven several of the RFRA decisions.

And it's the area that I would attack that I don't hear anybody talking about in terms of how to fix what's gone wrong with RFRA. Okay, so let's dig into these state RFRAs a little bit, because I feel like that's how most of us became aware. This is a law that passed in 1993, and those of us who aren't lawyers basically didn't hear about it until a couple of years ago is is that because of the state riffers how do they differ from the federal uh wording well they actually don't uh they they don't differ that much but here i'll do like i i do this with thomas sometimes and sort of give him a quiz. Here's Indiana's SB 101, which

is probably the most notorious state RFRA that's passed in the last couple of years. And that says, a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless it, one, is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, and two, is the least restrictive means of

furthering that compelling governmental interest. A person includes any individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, corporation, company, firm, society, joint stock company, unincorporated association, or any other entity driven by religious belief that can sue or be sued regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or for nonprofit purposes. Now, did you spot the difference? It seems like the second one has more words in it. Yeah. So it's the same kind of test, right? Which is to say, are you substantially burdening the exercise of religion? But we have defined everything as maximally expansive as possible, including, obviously, that super lengthy definition of what counts as a person, where I think, for example, it's crystal clear that a corporation, firm, joint stock company, unincorporated association, local dairy council, whatever, none of those would have standing under the old sherbert v verner

standard so remember you go back to rifra it's supposed to be restoring what's it restoring the 1962 era of the supreme court if you had gone to the 1962 supreme court and said i own a business that makes cheap crap that people use in scrapbooking, and my business has a firmly held religious belief, I think the Supreme Court would have said nine to nothing. Businesses don't have sincerely held religious beliefs. Businesses are profit centers. Go home. But the state acts are expanding that in ways that were not intended by the original federal RFRA.

And that's not a coincidence. Most of these state acts are pushed by conservative activist groups that have watched how the courts have interpreted RFRA over the years. They don't really care about protecting the peyote using Native Americans. They want to protect the churches who want to expand and don't want to bother getting a permit from their local government to expand in a protected historical district. All right. So from a layman's perspective, when you look at this law from 30,000 feet, it seems like what it says is any religious person or institution

can opt out of any law as long as they really, really, really Jesus about it. So how far off is that interpretation? Well, today it's not that far off, and it's because each of the prongs of the original RFRA have been pushed, I would argue, in ways that sort of almost render it unintelligible, right? So the first question is,

right, what counts as a substantial burden on the exercise of your religious beliefs, right? And the term substantial burden is not really well defined in case law. I mean, there are only a couple of these cases at the Supreme Court level, and there's no definition of what constitutes substantial burden in the RFRA statute, right? Or at least there is backed by the more conservative coalition. The ROUIPA says exercise of religion is defined as any exercise of religion, quote, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief, which is to be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution. Well, that's pretty clear. All the stuff. Yeah. Yeah. And look, you have to do that.

If you are the religious right and you're lobbying for this, you have to do that because any historical examination of, for example, the pro-life movement, right, will demonstrate that 40 years ago, being pro-life was not a core tenet of any Baptist, Protestant, you know, what we think of as the conservative evangelical sects of Christianity. They had not yet been co-opted into this political movement, and the pro-life position was associated primarily only with Catholics up until the late 70s. I mean, we don't really have time to get into the history of that here. But that is an incredibly recent addition that I think most Baptists are not aware with respect to their religion.

So you have to define the exercise of religion as this doesn't have to be core doctrine. Right. Well, yeah, because Jesus doesn't say anything about condoms or abortions or gay people or well, I guess he did have a little bit of trash talk for gay people. But other than that, a lot of the core stuff that they try to use their religion to excuse

is nowhere in their Bible. Right. And nobody thought about it. In 1993, there was absolutely no thought that taking a political position would be the equivalent of burdening your free exercise of religion. And we know this because somebody had tried it. In fact, the Amish tried it. And in 1982, they sued. Actually, in 1980, they sued. The opinion was in 1982. They sued for the right not to pay taxes.

Okay. And the Supreme Court laughed at this, right? This was a 1982 case called U.S. v. Lee, L-E-E. And the Supreme Court said, you know, paying taxes is a fundamental obligation of citizenship, and that doesn't count for purposes of getting a religious exemption, even if it's a substantial burden on your sincerely held religious beliefs. We don't care. Pay your taxes. Right. So that's the only case prior to these RFRA cases that dealt with what you might think of as using your religion as a political shield to not do something that otherwise people would have to do. And I think Lee was a nine nothing decision.

I don't know that for a fact, but it was not a controversial case. Right. And that was really the status of the law when it was left to judicial interpretation. And the problem, in my view, is that you have what is essentially a matter of judicial interpretation being taken out of the hands of the judiciary and being put in the hands of federal and state legislatures. Well, in the defense of the legislatures, I think Scalia may have proved that the judicial branch just can't handle those kind of responsibilities sometimes. But, okay, well, you know, I obviously could fill whole diatribes with my issues with RFRA, and I have.

But I'd love to hear a lawyer's perspective on this. Can this law be saved? Is it necessary? Should it be scrapped? Should it be amended? What do we do about RFRA? saved? Is it necessary? Should it be scrapped? Should it be amended? What do we do about RFRA? Well, here's something that as far as I know, I haven't heard anybody campaign on this or discuss this. And it's something I mentioned whenever I meet with legislators, which, you know, which I

do from time to time. And I want to put it out there because I know there are a lot of people that listen to your show that were at the Reason Rally that are part of the Secular Coalition for America who are active in government. And it's this, okay? You can, when drafting legislation, you can put in the enabling act portion of the legislation that this act is not subject to RFRA. We do this all the time for all kinds of laws. And you don't have to put it in boldface. You can bury it in the text. You can make it hard to find.

But because RFRA is a statute, because it was passed by the Congress, subsequent laws can say, hey, RFRA wasn't meant to apply to this law. And if I were advising Democratic policymakers, I would say when you're drafting a bill, start putting as a matter of course in Section 1, every bill you draft, whether it has anything to do with anything that might be touched by RFRA or not, start putting in there, you know, section one, this law is not subject to RFRA, RFRA doesn't apply to this law. And we can sort of legislate RFRA into irrelevance, at least at the federal level, because I have to say, I don't think the prospects even under a Hillary Clinton administration, even if, you know, the Democrats win back the Senate, I think it's highly unlikely. All the models show they're not likely to win back the Congress. Even if by some miracle they did, that would be, you know, a large number of conservative Democrats in red states. Well, and even if they win the Senate, they're not going to take 60 seats. Yeah, right. Exactly. So to the extent that we're going to have legislation, and we may not,

right? Like, I mean, we pretty much haven't had legislation for, you know, six years now. But no, so I think that realistically, you're not going to get, you're not going to overturn RFRA. That strikes me as highly unlikely. And so I would start drafting prophylactically, because you can draft around it. And I haven't seen anybody talk about that as a strategy. If there are legislative aides who are listening who want to tell me why that's wrong, I would love to hear it. But as far as I can see, because RFRA is a statute and not a method of constitutional interpretation, you can draft around it.

All right. Well, if any of the listeners are like me and we're just diving to run into all the little nooks and crannies we couldn't quite get into in this discussion. Of course, I'd encourage you to check out the Opening Arguments podcast. You'll find a link on the show notes for this episode. Any idea what kind of topics you guys have coming up? Yeah, so our next couple of episodes are working through the history of abortion rights and

good arguments and bad arguments. From there, we are tackling one of my favorite topics, which is the sovereign citizen movement and the notion that there is no law that requires you to pay your taxes. Oh, I can't wait. Which is just, that's going to be a lot of fun. It is one of the few instances where judges will issue opinions that can be read unadulterated on something like Scathing Atheist and still be funny.

Awesome. Yeah, no, I love it. I'm going to send it to several cousins and a brother-in-law as soon as it's up. Well, thanks again for your time tonight, Andrew, and best of luck with the new show. No, thank you very much for having me on and for being a supporter. You have been out there sort of early and often as a cheerleader,

and I really appreciate it. I know Thomas really appreciates it. Hey, I'll tell you what, more good podcasts out there. The Rising Tide lifts all boats. It's purely self-interested. So it's purely self-interested. you can also catch us in Glasgow on Monday October 17th or in Edinburgh on Tuesday October 18th or you can come to both that way we'll know people in Edinburgh we'll feel cool anyway you'll find a link to the Facebook page for those events on the show notes for this episode anyway that's all the blasphemy we've got for you tonight but we'll be back in 10,022 minutes with more if you can't

wait that long be on the lookout for a brand new episode of our sister shows hot friend god awful movies we're celebrating Eli's return with our Christian wrestling movie and of course if that's too long to wait be sure to subscribe to us on YouTube for bonus nuggets of scatheism throughout the week. Obviously, I'd be a sad excuse for me if I didn't thank Heath Enright for gracing us with his expertly crafted dick jokes once again this week. I need to thank the lovely Lucinda Lusions for finding yet another elegant way of saying, fuck these fuckers. I need to thank Eli for making the edit so much easier over the last couple of weeks. Which is a joke because we really miss Eli and he's totally worth mutant peanut munching sounds whenever he's not talking for. Also need to offer one more big thanks to Andrew for joining me tonight.

Incidentally, what you heard tonight was a pretty pared down version of the entire interview. There was a lot more detail in the extended Patreon only edition. So if me compliment your balls isn't enough to move the donation needle, figure I should add that to the scales. Oh yeah. Also big thanks to Anna for providing this week's Farnsworth quote. And by the way, that's not Anna as in the Anna that Eli married, and neither was the Anna that provided the Farnsworth

quote the week before. Last, totally different Annas. I'm guessing if we ever get Anna Bosnick to do one, it's going to come complete with ukulele accompaniment. Or at least I hope so. But most of all, of course, I need to thank this week's best people, Jesse, Evan, Tom, Simo, Ross, Craig, Stephen, Mike, Baron, Von, Waffles, Randall, and Alex. Jesse, Evan, Tom, and Simo,

whose IQs are only tweetable in scientific notation. Ross, Craig, Steven, and Mike, who attract more pussy than an upturned shoebox lid. And Baron Von Waffles, Randall, and Alec, whose testicular hemispheres are referred to as nightside and dayside. Together, these 11 elegant, eloquent elites elected elevate our electronic elegy for religion this week by giving us money. Not everybody has the testicular and or ovarian fortitude it takes to give us money, but if you think your genitals are up to the challenge, you can make a per-episode donation at patreon.com slash scathingatheist whereby you'll earn early access to an extended edition

of every episode, or you can make a one-time donation by clicking on the donate button on the right side of our homepage at scathingatheist.com. And if you'd like to help, but you're still saving up for that doggy in the window, you can also help us a ton by leaving us a five-star review on iTunes, Stitcher, or wherever else you like to put five-star reviews. If you have questions, comments, or death threats, you'll find all the contact info on the contact page at skatingatheist.com. All the music used in this episode was written and performed by yours truly, and yes, I did have my permission.

If anyone wants to help out law... If anyone wants to help out law... If anyone wants to help out law... If anyone wants to help out law... Law enforcement officials. Just in case that's stupid, if anyone wants to help out law... Just imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man got cast as the sub...

Just imagine the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man got cast as the sub... Law enforcement officials. The preceding podcast was a production of Puzzle in a Thunderstorm, LLC. Copyright 2016. All rights reserved.