UFO’s, NASA and Religion ~ Gulp!

 

What would happen to religion if ET’s landed?

NASA granted a million dollars to the Center of Theological Inquiry to study this question. Really.

Here’s a NASA dot gov link talking about it. A “.gov” URL can’t be faked, so this must be real, not a hoax.

Two explanations come to mind…

1.) NASA needed to dump some “excess” year-end money.

At the Pettis VA Medical Center where I worked for 13 years as a pathologist, I was told that any department that didn’t deplete its budget money by fiscal year-end would have its budget cut the following year by the unspent amount. They said it’s like this in all government agencies. Congress funds NASA, too, of course.

If this budgeting habit is widespread, it might help explain why the US seems to be fading, like every other powerhouse nation in history, into a ghost of its former stature. Runaway debt is poison. Enjoying world-reserve-currency status merely prolongs the decline.

But the point is, NASA may have been dumping excess year-end money, feeling too rushed to consider the appearance of tax dollars going to a religious study.

Odd but right at home with the US spending shenanigans in The Death of Common Sense, by Phillip Howard.

2.) There’s also the remote possibility that NASA has a genuine concern for the fate of religion in a world where ET’s become real, no longer forgettable things that nearly all scientists agree must be out there somewhere.

As a sci-fi writer, I use the UFO literature as a muse. Endless ideas. But I’ve probably read too much of it because some of the UFO people don’t sound simple-minded, crazy or dishonest to me at all.

Two of the non-crazies are President Carter and Paul Hellyer (a former Canadian Minister of Defense).

Worldview anomalies from these people are hard to ignore. And they’re not alone. A few astronauts, along with hundreds of government and military personnel have given lengthy video interviews about UFO’s and ET’s.

For instance, here’s the late Edgar Mitchell (God rest his insightful soul), the sixth man to walk on the moon:

 

There’s also FAA Division Chief John Callahan who reports a UFO in Alaska, describing multiple witnesses, radar corroboration and CIA cover-up – “This meeting never happened.”

If that’s a little unnerving, a former ER doc, Steven Greer, MD, who left the emergency room to pursue “UFO disclosure” full-time, challenges both the UFO community and the general public with his detailed stories and documents.

Most MD’s I’ve known over the years would love to escape medical practice and its complex, risky and stressful routine. Some manage to get away, usually climbing the food chain to administration.

But doctors from the top ten percent of a medical school class (AOA), like Dr. Greer, don’t willingly accept a loss of prestige. And because they’re heavily in debt, they rarely opt for a lower income without a solid business plan.

As far as I can tell, there’s nothing prestigious or solid about UFO’s in the US. So Dr. Greer is difficult to ignore.

His Jewish wife of nearly four decades must be a saint to have followed and supported him in this unusual lifestyle. He thanks her publicly.

He says he’s seen UFO’s since childhood.

Stanton Freedman, PhD sounds a little edgy, highly intelligent, and happens to be a nuclear physicist who’s dedicated most of his life to studying UFO’s, even though he’s never seen one.

There’s no way I can ignore a person like him. Sorry, Mom.

Richard Dolan is a historian with an academic delivery that appeals to people who like objectivity. His level-headed views and philosophical analysis of UFO’s give him a unique voice in the spectrum of “experts.”

He’s never seen a UFO. Here’s his perspective. I find it riveting…

But for some reason the guy who sounds the most convincing to me is The Honorable Paul Hellyer of Canada. He’s 93 years old now but sharper in front of a panel of politicians than most younger people would be. Aside from his topic, he sounds as rational as a math teacher on Tuesday morning.

When he went public on UFO’s he hadn’t seen one. Then a few years later he said that he and his wife had finally seen one (twice).

While atheists are understandably upset that some of NASA’s tax dollars went to a religious outfit, there’s a group of well-educated religious people who think that the arrival of ET’s on Earth would support the theory of intelligent design.

I’d agree. “Coincidences” like Earth’s hypercomplex DNA codes showing up in a “mindless universe” can’t happen on one planet after another without spoiling science’s enthusiasm for the neo-Darwinian myth.

Spirituality provides meaning and purpose to most people today, and has done so for our ancestors throughout recorded history. Perhaps science demotes these facts to everyone’s peril.

Is it possible that the rocket scientists at NASA truly worry that religion might die if our world accepted ET’s as real?

I guess fundamentalism (both scientific and religious) would take a hit. But I don’t think most people’s appreciation of God would suffer. Mine wouldn’t.

How about yours?

Morrill Talmage Moorehead, MD

 

59 thoughts on “UFO’s, NASA and Religion ~ Gulp!

  1. Who Is Not Important

    It’s interesting to read all the sixties “religion as we know it is about to die and be resurrected as something so much purer” theology (like Harvey Cox’s The Secular City) with the rise of all forms of fundamentalism that has occurred in the last twenty to twenty-five years. Folks like Cox were so optimistic about the future then even though the wreckage of the most destructive fundamentalisms was still visible in Europe (Warsaw still had piles of rubble in the seventies) and the Soviet soul. And while Mao hadn’t quite ramped things up to their most viscerally violent yet, the writing was on the way, so to say. So folks like Cox and Leary and Lennon and all the other utopia’s-soon-to-comers could sit in that world and say, “Yes, but religion as we know it is waning and a brave new world will appear” and do it with a straight face despite the fact. How could they be blind to the cults of personality in Moscow, Berlin, and Beijing, which so clearly showed that we don’t need religion to have violent fundamentalism?

    • Who Is Not Important

      (That was meant to be a response to jonathanscottgriffin’s comment — otherwise it seems to have little to do with the post directly. 🙂

      • Thanks for sharing your broad-minded understanding of violent non-religious political fundamentalism. I suspect that God made this universe in response to requests for something uniquely challenging to body and moral character. I’m probably wrong, but it’s the feeling I get sometimes. Utopia doesn’t seem to be in the cards – not here in our era, anyway. Most of us on Earth are still struggling for enough food and shelter to stay alive while the rest are dying of carbohydrate overload. Literally.
        Great comment. Thanks. 🙂

  2. Belief in God will go on. John Lennon said that religion would die, but he was wrong. In fact, Zeuss worship has come back into play again in modern Greece. Even if aliens did land, there would be many people who would find ways to reconcile their religious beliefs with alien life forms. So, no, it wouldn’t hinder my belief in God.

    • Thanks for the advice, even if it’s a “spammed” message. I’m trying to avoid any bias that money might bring to my opinions here.

      I’m building another site where I’ll be offering my services as a “content editor” for fiction, using “The Story Grid” method that I’m learning from Shawn Coyne. If I ever make money, it will be over there. 🙂

  3. I just finished listening to an audiobook of “Out of Silent Planet,” and I feel like it does a great job of suggesting how extra-terrestrial life might affect a spiritual person’s viewpoint. Some astronauts, seeing the Earth from their ship, were confirmed in their belief that there is no God, while for others seeing the stars was a deeply spiritual experience. Some people might abandon their beliefs, both for and against God or religion, but I think most people would continue to believe as they do.

    • Thanks for your views on C.S. Lewis’ “Out of the Silent Planet.” That’s one of his that I still haven’t read. Sounds interesting.

      I think you’re right about most people continuing on in their basic current beliefs. In the church I used to belong to, they told us that Earth was the only “fallen” world. The others had never eaten the forbidden fruit (literally). So if aliens showed up and didn’t seem morally perfect, it might be a jolt to their sense of prophetic infallibility, but they would adjust, I’m sure.

  4. nan

    This blog could distract me from essential work for days! Brilliant and uplifting! Can one hire you as a beta reader? Or even a query reviewer? I am close (I think… haha) to querying for a 108,000 word novel of psychological suspense about how compassion can mend or destroy those resigned to injustice. The surface story blends pulp and seduction with spirituality and science.

    • Hi Nan,

      Thank you for the encouragement. 🙂

      I’m going to Nashville in September to learn Shawn Coyne’s Story Grid method of developmental editing in greater depth.

      If you’ve read his book, “The Story Grid,” you know what his style of content editing involves – spread sheets and graphs as well as intuitive analysis with emphasis on the readers’ expectations for each genre. It’s a ton of detailed work, but I’ve read his book and taken one of his less-intense courses geared for writers, so I’ve learned a lot from him already.

      Anyway, I have plans for doing serious content editing for myself and a few other fiction writers after September, 2017.

      For now, you’re welcome to send me the first fifty pages or so of you novel and I’ll read them and share my thoughts with you – just for the fun of it.

      After that, if we want, we can talk about the cost of a beta read, a complete developmental (content) edit, or any other possibilities.

      Here’s my email address: cytopathology(at) gmail(dot)com

      By the way, I like the overall direction of your novel. Spirituality and science are dear to my heart. 🙂

  5. I’d agree. “Coincidences” like Earth’s hypercomplex DNA codes showing up in a “mindless universe” can’t happen on one planet after another without spoiling science’s enthusiasm for the neo-Darwinian myth.

    Loved this quote
    Wonderful written 👌🏻👍🏻👍🏻

  6. OwnShadow

    The implications of ET contact cannot be good. They wouldn’t communicate unless there was something they wanted. And it is unlikely we would feel they had a right to it. The differences between us would be vast in so many ways. Trying taking a bone off your pet dog and then count you fingers. And dogs are highly tuned to our behaviour and wish only to serve us. What chance do we have of relating to beings who’ve had a completely different evolution on another planet?

    • As a scientist, I don’t think macro-evolution is possible in 13.8 billion years of Neo-Darwinian evolution. Read “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen Meyer if you have time and interest in questioning the “settled science” of our culture.

      It’s all joyous speculation when we try to imagine the motivation and type of intelligence of any ET’s that might be out there. It’s possible that most intelligent species go through a self-destructive period like the entire human species seems to be doing right now – all the wars and WMD’s poised to turn us into radioactive dust.

      And if humans get past this dangerous point in our collective moral development, perhaps we’ll eventually take to the stars and become the ET’s of other primitives on other planets. To speculatively extrapolate from this, it’s possible to imagine that the sort of moral and emotional maturity needed to survive self-destruction might be common to most intelligent species who have developed interstellar transportation tech.

      That’s hopeful thinking.

      It also seems rational to project our own planet’s dog-eat-dog mentality onto the ET’s that most scientists agree are probably out there somewhere.

      If they exist and they’re like us, we need look no farther than the American Indian Reservations to intuit humanity’s destiny, assuming ET’s arrive before our weapons are as powerfully evil as theirs.

      “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” I think this is humanity’s counterintuitive path to survival, come what may.

        • That’s an excellent thought (assuming they’ve already arrived).

          But what if Europeans had been morally advanced in the 15th century and arrived on the shores of North America deciding not to take over the New World, but to just observe it as secretly as possible and not disturb the Natives American owners of the land?

          That might have lead to local rumors of strange sightings off the coast. The Native Americans would have been fearful, perhaps, and speculated about the European’s good intentions, saying, “If they were friendly, we would by now have no need to speculate.”

          Just a thought.

          • OwnShadow

            If the aliens are around they ‘took over’ millions of years ago. We are cattle in their field or an ants’ nest in their garden – whichever metaphor you want to use. A proud lion, striding on the African savannah, has no idea that a prey item, man, is now running the planet. It would come as an awful shock to him if he was smart enough to figure it out. The difference with us is that we, or some of us, suspect that ET is around but the generality of humanity refuses the accept the notion because of the humiliating implications. ETs speculates about us because they do not understand us and never will. You have to be a member of the same species to understand a species. They probably haven’t even decided if we are in their terms sentient. The question would be one of their great mysteries. Hence no contact for the same reason that we don’t talk to cattle or ask to chat to the queen ant. What would be the point? We are alone in the universe just as we are alone on Earth, with no other creature to talk to. This is a lesson that will be difficult to learn but every advanced interstellar culture sooner or later has to face it. Human beings only have each other.
            The Native American analogy only describes people meeting up with other people. I feel it has no relevance to the question. But I appreciate your detailed reply.

            • “If Aliens are around they took over millions of years ago.”

              This assumes that they want to take over and that they have arrived millions of years ago if they’ve arrived at all. How can we be sure that these assumptions are accurate?

              “ETs speculates about us because they do not understand us and never will.”

              This is an assumption, as near as I can tell. Is there reproducible evidence to support it?

              “We are alone in the universe just as we are alone on Earth, with no other creature to talk to.”

              This is a depressing assumption based upon a subjective experience that I don’t share with you.

              I talk to my dog all the time. She communicates with body language. She seems to understand me at an emotional level and often tries to cheer me up when I’m having a low-energy day.

              We are all probably aware at some level when we’re relying on untestable, fundamentalist-style assumptions for our worldview. We all make assumptions, of course, and this fact doesn’t mean that the assumptions we make are incorrect, correct or somewhere in between.

              All assumptions deserve to be compared side by side on their own merits rather than chosen subconsciously, as we all often do.

              To assume that there are no value similarities between humans and any sentient life out there in space is a respectable assumption, exactly the same as my assumption is respectable, namely that there may be similarities in empathy present in many, if not most, sentient beings within the Universe and beyond it.

              I can’t strengthen my assumption by making emotional statements about how obviously true it is, or how insightful I am in seeing it, or how unrealistic others are who make conflicting assumptions. Confident statements full of emotion don’t make assumptions more likely to be true or false. The Neo-Darwinists and scientific materialists need to understand this and soften their arrogant, depressing rhetoric.

              The emotions of confidence and superiority are irrelevant human means of persuasion (unfortunately effective), that don’t have good correlation with the accuracy of an assumption.

              In fact, history shows us a scientific tradition of confident, supercilious academics doing their best to dismiss breakthrough science until the truth overpowers them. This is the norm in science not the exception, as best I can tell.

              Evidence is what’s needed in the ET discussion. Unfortunately, solid, independently verifiable evidence is difficult to come by on this subject. So we must continue to humbly speculate if we want to exchange rational ideas in search of reality and truth. I would offer this thought…

              If humans were all sociopaths, then projecting a reality without empathy into the speculative world of ET’s would seem more realistic to me than it does right now in a world where only 1 to 4 % of us are sociopaths.

              But as I say, this is my bias speaking in support of my assumptions that, unfortunately, can’t be tested at this time. At least I can’t test them because I’ve never had any sort of other-worldly experience or even a UFO sighting, so all I have is limited human thinking and a desire to be as unbiased and objective as I can.

              • OwnShadow

                When I said “if aliens took over…” I used inverted commas around ‘took over’ for a reason. I don’t think, if they are around, that they have ‘taken over’ any more than humans have ‘taken over’ the African savannah and own all the lions. It’s just that we CAN own the lions if we want. We are the top predator, not the lions. We allow them some scope to be themselves. Aliens would have no desire to take over the Earth because, well, they have their own! They might WANT

                • OwnShadow

                  …they might WANT something, however, and that might produce conflict.
                  I’m pleased you get on so well with your dog and that you can communicate. It is, however, a myth that dogs really understand us even on an emotional level. Our emotions are far too sophisticated for them. A simple proof of this is if you tell your dog that you are going to take it to the vet’s to have it put to sleep – but use the same enthusiastic tone of voice and gestures that you use when you are offering to take it for a walk. The dog will jump up and down with excitement. If you reverse the experiment, the dog will feel enormously sad about the prospect of going for a walk…Your actual emotions will have nothing to do with either response.
                  I use emotional-sounding sentence structure to add colour to my sentences, but I do not feel any emotion on this subject, least of all superiority. Also, your dog has no idea what a blog is and has no idea I even exist. That should tell you something about how a little difference in evolutionary history results in a vast difference between the paradigms experienced by two creatures. Your dog doesn’t care about being owned, but I doubt if you would relish being bought and sold.
                  Aliens, IF they are around, may not want to be our masters but THAT IS NOT THEIR CHOICE. That choice has already been made for them by nature.

                  • The idea that dogs can read our body language accurately is not a myth, there’s plenty of evidence for it. That ability doesn’t make them infallible. A person speaking Chinese can fool me with body language and vocal tone that’s incongruous with what they’re really saying, but that doesn’t prove that my ability to understand body language and to care and feel empathy for others is a myth.

                    When you say that nature has caused aliens (if they exist) to be our masters in the same sense that we are masters of the animal kingdom, I think you make a good point.

                    Having superior intellect and technology (and who knows what else) would give them the potential to consider us their property and to treat us the way many people treat the cattle we raise for slaughter.

                    On the other hand, they might be inclined to treat us as near equals, the way many people treat dogs, apes and dolphins. They might be determined to preserve our natural habitat and way of life, the way some of us try to do for certain animals.

                    They may, in fact, have a choice to repair the thousands of DNA glitches in our gene pool or to somehow raise our level of intelligence and empathy as a species.

                    These positive possibilities can’t be ruled out without evidence any more than the negative possibilities can – where Aliens arrive, eat us, belch and move on (or some variation of that theme).

                    • OwnShadow

                      As for the dogs, my point was that body language and tone of voice is all they read. As for the rest, I would refer to my blog ‘You are an Alien’ for a fuller picture.

                    • I thought your point was that dogs can’t understand us or our emotions…

                      “It is, however, a myth that dogs really understand us even on an emotional level. Our emotions are far too sophisticated for them. A simple proof of this is…”

                      And then you described a scenario that could apply to a human as well as to a dog.

                      Thanks for your comments.

                    • OwnShadow

                      The point is that a human being has the POTENTIAL to see through the deception. A dog hasn’t. It relies on simple cues. Human beings however, rarely notice the distinction because, well, we have no need to lie to dogs. We only lie to each other. That’s why we value our relationship with our pets because those relationships are so honest. A human being can always be fooled, of course – but only a human being would then feel a fool.

  7. I’m not religious and can’t help but think the world would be a lot better without it. But I’m open to anything since all of this seems unprovable. There may be a god or more than one or none at all. We may have been planted here by aliens, the soul may survive death. The planet may be sentient, we may incarnate into butterflies, we may simply rot and feed the soil. The only thing that I know is that I don’t know. So is this research useful? Maybe. Enough people have strong beliefs to be concerned about what might happen if their beliefs are challenged. Interesting post. 🙂

  8. A person doesn’t have to be religious to believe there is a God/Creator. You can believe that all religions are man-made (invented by man) and still be convinced there is a creator. Accepting this would do away with the senseless (and often violent) clashes between religions which insist that they are the only “true” religion.

    • I couldn’t agree more.

      Perhaps I need to use the word “spiritual” rather than “religious.” But is it possible to believe in a creator and not be “spiritual” about it? Hmm. I don’t know.

      I appreciate your insight. Thanks. 🙂

    • Thank you for the link. The book sounds academic.
      When you imply that you’re disappointed with the concept of God as an “entity” I’m guessing you mean a “mindless entity.” If so, I share your discomfort with that concept. I think that any Being capable of generating our DNA code is also capable of speaking and understanding human language. That’s why I pray a lot and feel that God is listening and caring deeply about the things in our lives.

  9. :)

    “…and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for Thine IS the Kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever.”

    Amen.

    🙂

    • The part of that text (The Lord’s Prayer) following the word “evil” is said to be absent from older manuscripts.

      Does the following text reflect Jesus’ feelings about the sort of fundamentalism that makes an idol out of scripture? — “You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me! Yet you refuse to come to me to receive this life.” – John 5:39,40

      • :)

        I’m neither a clever person…nor a particularly smart person…but, I have loved God from the womb. I have personal stories about the love of God. He went radio-silent on me during the hardest times of my life – at least it seemed so. Then, instead of giving me pat answers, He took me on a journey. He kept telling me to “Wait. Wait on the LORD.” Unthinkable negative things happened…and have happened all along my journey. The truth for me is – even this DAY again – is a Person who is living and true: He is near to my heart. He is faithful. “He does not treat me as my sins deserve.” He’s loving and gentle…and only requires my trust and obedience. “He helps me to do His Will…He even HELPS me to do His Will.” How awesome is that!

        Fundamentalism/academic discussion is so important as we flesh things out (i.e. “Work out your salvation with fear (respect) and trembling (He IS God)…but Life, to me, is what my heart has, and does, long for: relationship. Relationship is what He’s all about! Today, AGAIN, He is helping me to hear Him, love Him and obey Him. Religion is cold…Science forgets the ONE Whose fingerprints are all over it…but learning the truth about how much He loves me, and is guiding me deeper and deeper into His Heart – as I treasure Him more than any other thing/passion/god – is life-giving.

        Evil: a twisting of the truth. The Liar, The Stealer, The Killer, The Destroyer…the Snake that whispers seducingly when we’re distracted, “Did God r e a l l y say….? Break trust and relationship with God is that Snake’s core distraction.

        God means every word He ever wrote. If we want our eyes open, we have to stop creating alternate realities when He has things so loving, kind and creative – far exceeding anthing we could come up with ourselves.

        And, as we find Him, the challenge becomes not being distracted by His blessings, so much that we forget the Lover that drew us into every good thing in the first place.

        hm… was that a sermon…??”

        p.s. His Kingdom – for Christians – is not of this world anyways. Regarding this present world, it is passing away…but not just yet. When God does what only God CAN do…and we pass from this corruptible world into the incorruptible…Jesus (our bridge back from a severed relationship with God)…will either look at us and respond, “Welcome into my Kingdom!”…or, “I never knew you…” NOT because HE rejected us, but because we rejected Him. Our destiny is…our choice. He’s done all that ONLY GOD c o u l d do: He made a path…back into His Heart.

        I’m one happy kid on pilgrimage! Moments CAN be hard…but moments also turn into…miracles!

        • Thank you from the bottom of my hear for your warm, enthusiastic testimony about your walk with God.

          Mine has been quite similar to yours in most respects, though I’ve come to believe there is a broader underlying truth for me than the specific details I once thought came straight from God to man in an infallible Book.

          Still, I have all respect and gratefulness for all the goodness and truth present in that Book and for all those who believe in it as I did for most of my life. It’s more likely that Bible fundamentalists are right than that I’m right about anything… except that I love God, trust Him and pray a lot. 🙂

          • :)

            I understand that our love for God has each of us on a journey that keeps our hearts in a humble, listening mode. God says that anyone who is sincerely looking for God, will find Him.

            How your express YOUR heart, warms mine! 🙂

  10. I agree. My belief in God would not be hindered. Personally, I don’t know how the discovery of ET life would pose a problem to a belief in God. Sure, we might need to change our perspective on reality (that’s what happened in Christendom when America was discovered, inhabited by many who had never even heard of Jesus). But I don’t think there would be any contradiction.

    I actually wrote a piece on the relationship between faith and reason; specifically how Christians should not fear scientific discovery (if you are interested: https://onthisrockweb.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/can-faith-trust-reason/)

    • I enjoyed your article on faith and reason and left a long boring comment. 😉 Thanks for the link!

      I think this “change in perspective on reality” is what has fundamentalists worried. I met a young person recently who said that the Bible IS God. He had a text from John to prove it. I couldn’t dissuade him.

      If ET’s ever land, he might have a crisis of faith. Any fundamentalist deferring to an idol, that is, turning off discretion and following infallible scientific journal articles, inerrant old writings or supernaturally insightful gurus, is apt to find such false idols challenged by advanced beings from another world, especially if some of those beings turn out to be “the angels of God” spoken of in various ways and cultures throughout history.

      On the other hand, I doubt that people who see God as the ONLY absolute will lose their faith, no matter who shows up.

  11. I agree with you, my appreciation of God wouldn’t suffer either. I have a pretty profound belief if God, or an intelligent creator. I’ve read a good bit of the Bible, but not a bunch of other religious texts; so I’m far far far from saying I know all this. But I haven’t ever read that there’s a God who created only us. Rationally speaking, more than empirically, I feel science and an intelligent creation or creator doesn’t have to be so separate. Gosh, I can feel the hate from some on both sides for me saying that. But please remember, this is just a casual comment, I’m certainly no where close to having all the answers. And I’m certainly not against other beliefs and theories. I normally don’t comment on things like this, but this is the second time recently I’ve heard religion doesn’t support beliefs in extraterrestrial life. And I guess I just wondered why it was bad to think God could create life forms other places.

    • Thank you for your broad-minded and kind comment. I can’t imagine why anyone would hate what you’re saying. People of faith should all be honest and realistic. If our beliefs are so brittle they can’t stand up to new understandings of reality, we’ll wind up discouraged and depressed when a new worldview arrives, such as the Earth orbiting the Sun in defiance of the collective human ego. My belief in God is to a large extent based upon what science has discovered about DNA and the molecular world within human cells. But humility is the key ingredient for me, because there’s a whole chunk of nuclear physics that seems to indicate that the underlying nature of reality may be beyond human comprehension. At least mine. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s