Is It Really the Protestant Work Ethic?

 

Why are the United States, England, and northern Europe rich while southern and eastern Europe poor? You will hear many answers, and a popular one cribs from Max Weber — Protestantism. I am a Protestant myself, so one might think that I should like this answer, but as a historian, I believe in studying history to learn from it, not merely have my own biases confirmed. And frankly, I don’t really like this answer.

The argument is that Protestants — by which are normally meant Calvinist lineages, not Lutherans — have several beliefs that encourage hard work, living modestly, and investing.  The first is the doctrine of predestination and the elect. At the beginning of the world, God elected who would be saved. One can never know whether is in the elect, but material success was a strong suggestion of it. Thus, financial prudence was encouraged. Second, the iconoclastic tendencies meant that churches did not collect funds from their parishioners for elaborate and ornate decoration, leaving more money in the hands of the people. Going along with that point, virtually every form of wasteful spending — luxurious clothes, food, furniture, entertainments, gambling — was condemned as sinful. Finally, charity to the poor was kept extremely minimal in honor of Paul’s statement that those who will not work will not eat.  All this, according to Weber, added up to a society that generated wealth and had nothing to spend it on except more capitalistic investment, and these societal elements continued to encourage wealth creation even as the Calvinist denominations shrunk in favor of Methodists and Baptists who didn’t share the inciting doctrines.

Well, allow me H.L. Mencken: “Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” Frankly, the “Calvinism makes people rich” theory strikes me as being one of those explanations, because it ignores so many other factors that distinguish Protestant Europe from Catholic and Orthodox Europe.

Let’s start with the most obvious: geography. Being in different locations with different access to seaports, prevailing winds, trade routes, and natural resources like crops, fishing, wood, stone, and ore — of course the people of the British Isles, Scandinavia, and northern Germany are going to have different levels of wealth from those of Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, and Poland, who in turn are going to have different levels of wealth from Russia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.  And not only do the different Christian denomination countries have different levels of wealth, they’ve changed quite dramatically relative to each other. Italy was in an excellent spot to take advantage of the winds and currents on the Mediterranean when most European trade came through Constantinople and so was rich while England was poor; England was in an excellent spot to take advantage of the trade winds and currents going to the Americas and so was rich while Italy was poor.

What about demographic history? Catholic countries were settled by Celts and Romans who preferred large towns and cities; Protestant ones by Germans and their close cousins Scandinavians who preferred to be more independent and isolated. Perhaps what we see is an ancestral preference for liberty that reveals itself in both religious and economic independence, or a preference for more democratic structures. Iceland’s Parliament, after all, is the oldest in the world, with England’s not that much younger, while countries like Ireland, Spain, and Italy have had their current representative democratic governments for less than a century.

Closely related, we have political history. The Reformation occurred as much because the religious leaders had political patrons willing to support them, whether Martin Luther with the Elector of Saxony or John Calvin with the Elector of the Palatinate, as its novel teachings (see Jan Hus for what happened when one taught against the Catholic Church without political patronage).  Perhaps the correlation isn’t that Calvinism makes for more successful people but rather than a king or noble willing to defy the Catholic Church also made better political choices to encourage his people to become wealthier.

Or it could be even more random than that — perhaps France, Spain, and Austria just crapped out on their rulers while England, Sweden, and Prussia/Germany lucked out. My historical imagination can’t quite imagine Charles V of Spain/Austria or Louis XIV of France becoming less interested in wars of succession and glittering palaces and more interested in capital investment and business-friendly laws if only they had embraced the TULIP and denied the Real Presence during the Eucharist, after all.

Yes, the Reformation is now half a millennium old, and life in traditionally Protestant countries is wealthier than that in traditionally Catholic ones. In trying to establish a denomination’s effects on economic wealth, however, we cannot ignore the multitude of complicating factors that go into creating a wealthy country, and we certainly don’t have the ability to run a properly scientific experiment to isolate the variables. Let’s not embrace the neat, plausible, and possibly wrong theory just because it tickles our prejudices.

That being said … does anyone know of a critique of Weber’s theory that has some hard data attached to the possibilities I’ve thrown out?

There are 60 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Amy Schley: Yes, the Reformation is now half a millennium old, and life in traditionally Protestant countries is wealthier than that in traditionally Catholic ones. In trying to establish a denomination’s effects on economic wealth, however, we cannot ignore the multitude of complicating factors that go into creating a wealthy country, and we certainly don’t have the ability to run a properly scientific experiment to isolate the variables. Let’s not embrace the neat, plausible, and possibly wrong theory just because it tickles our prejudices.

    Yes, sometimes it is just luck.  Or hard work, regardless of faith.

    As a Catholic convert (from Episcopalian) I do think the Protestant work ethic is important regardless of one’s faith.

    • #1
  2. Could Be Anyone Member
    Could Be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    Does anyone actually believe in the Protestant Work Ethic explanation anymore?

    Amy Schley: That being said … does anyone know of a critique of Weber’s theory that has some hard data attached to the possibilities I’ve thrown out?

    Did Weber every actually propose data to support his assertion? I don’t remember there being any data sets for regression with control variables. It is theoretical at best.

    • #2
  3. HankMorgan Coolidge
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Sorry, but I’ve only got another theory for the pile: climate. In the more northern climates if you don’t work hard and prepare for winter you die – so it gets ingrained into the cultures.

    • #3
  4. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Amy Schley: That being said … does anyone know of a critique of Weber’s theory that has some hard data attached to the possibilities I’ve thrown out?

    Amy,

    I would critique Weber using Hayek. It really isn’t the work ethic but the ethic itself. It is the personal autonomy / personal responsibility that is a conducive environment for both capitalism and democracy. Kant agrees in his much more intricate philosophical system. Kant BTW is a Protestant Pietist. I gather this is a branch of the Lutherans but has much in common with the other more individualistic Protestant sects. I am not an expert so I would be interested in your opinion of the Pietists.

    I think Weber is a high minded sociologist so he goes for a simplistic sociological explanation. He appears to be giving Protestants a compliment but not really. Their religious faith is deeper than just a work ethic and Weber doesn’t really do justice to the theology.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #4
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Amy Schley: Catholic countries were settled by Celts and Romans who preferred large towns and cities; Protestant ones by Germans and their close cousins Scandinavians who preferred to be more independent and isolated. Perhaps what we see is an ancestral preference for liberty that reveals itself in both religious and economic independence, or a preference for more democratic structures.

    What would be a plausible basis for considering this preference as a cause rather than an effect of something else (such as religion)? 

    BTW, I’m currently reading Murray Rothbard’s book on the Progressive Era, and he cites another researcher’s work to the effect that the political preferences for libertarianism vs moral reform in American politics have been shown to be explained better by religion than by any other factor. He identifies a religious continuum that ranges from liturgical to pietistic. For late 19th century America he argues that it explains more than any other factor the preference for libertarian, hands-off government to one actively engaged in reform.

    And then something changed.  But I got distracted from his book at that point and won’t get back to it until I finish the book that distracted me.  

     

    • #5
  6. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    I gather this is a branch of the Lutherans but has much in common with the other more individualistic Protestant sects. I am not an expert so I would be interested in your opinion of the Pietists.

    I won’t claim to be an expert either, but for orthodox Lutherans (meaning what I’ve been taught in the LCMS) Pietism is another form of the Arminian heresy — that is, it is the same salvation by works that we reject in Catholicism and Protestant denominations like Methodism that we also note crops up in Judaism and Islam. A Lutheran gets his salvation the way a baby gets a clean diaper — not by any work or inherent goodness of his own.  Thus, there is no theological push to prove one’s goodness with material success, white box churches, or personal asceticism. I’m not surprised at all that Weber liked the Pietists and despised orthodox Lutheranism, even as he recognized Luther’s notion of secular vocation as a step forward.

    • #6
  7. kylez Member
    kylez
    @kylez

    I think part of it is Catholic romanticization of the poor/poverty. Especially in the monastic movement, and the recurring theme of merchant class kids (Francis, Peter Waldo etc.) renouncing their (or their parents’) way of life, and selling what they had to be more devoted to God. 

    But there is a difference between lack of personal income, while living in a monastery funded by wealthier people and growing your own food etc. and living poor in a regular community working to survive.   

    • #7
  8. Jules PA Member
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    Even if the query is never solved, the discussion opens avenues of thought and behavior to consider. Interesting post. Thank you. 

    • #8
  9. Aaron Miller Member
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Not to cut this discussion short, but rather to feed it, here’s the last time we talked about this. 

    • #9
  10. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    @HankMorgan, I started to agree with your theory; but then I thought of Russia. That’s a pretty large (Siberia) exception, isn’t it?

    • #10
  11. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    What would be a plausible basis for considering this preference as a cause rather than an effect of something else (such as religion)? 

    That the distinction predates Christianity would be the main reason to assume that it’s not a Catholic/Protestant thing. Romans expanding the frontiers were quite able to distinguish between Celts in England and France who had large towns and would try to hide within them and the Germans who had no towns and would flee into the forest where all the Roman siege equipment did no good.  Now, maybe it’s religious thing in that both Romans and Celts had a tradition of pagan priesthood that didn’t exist in German and Scandinavian pagan cultures, that a thousand years later manifested in Romanized Celts clinging to a Catholic priestly caste while German/Scandinavian Protestants abandoned theirs — or at least stripped them of much of their power.

    I guess my main point is that every European Catholic wasn’t identical in culture until Martin Luther created a new Protestant work ethic ex nihilo on 10/31/1517.

    • #11
  12. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    HankMorgan (View Comment):
    Sorry, but I’ve only got another theory for the pile: climate. In the more northern climates if you don’t work hard and prepare for winter you die – so it gets ingrained into the cultures.

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):
    @HankMorgan, I started to agree with your theory; but then I thought of Russia. That’s a pretty large (Siberia) exception, isn’t it?

    My question would be if cold climates were all it took to be successful, why was Northern Europe a backwater until the 1600s? 

    • #12
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Amy Schley (View Comment):

    That the distinction predates Christianity would be the main reason to assume that it’s not a Catholic/Protestant thing. Romans expanding the frontiers were quite able to distinguish between Celts in England and France who had large towns and would try to hide within them and the Germans who had no towns and would flee into the forest where all the Roman siege equipment did no good. Now, maybe it’s religious thing in that both Romans and Celts had a tradition of pagan priesthood that didn’t exist in German and Scandinavian pagan cultures, that a thousand years later manifested in Romanized Celts clinging to a Catholic priestly caste while German/Scandinavian Protestants abandoned theirs — or at least stripped them of much of their power.

    Good point about the distinction predating Christianity, but maybe that distinction is not so much Celts vs Germans but highly organized and urbanized cultures vs not-so-organized and not-so-urbanized ones. Which I suspect would have us going in circles.   

    I guess my main point is that every European Catholic wasn’t identical in culture until Martin Luther created a new Protestant work ethic ex nihilo on 10/31/1517.

    That is a good point that I have no trouble accepting.

     

    • #13
  14. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    Aaron Miller (View Comment):

    Not to cut this discussion short, but rather to feed it, here’s the last time we talked about this.

    I remembered that we had talked about it before on Ricochet. I note that several of my theories weren’t brought up. :D

    • #14
  15. iWe Coolidge
    iWe
    @iWe

    Super post, thank you!

    I do think that believing we can carve our own futures makes it more likely that we will do so. If you believe in fate or destiny, then there is much less mobility. 

    Does grace come from good works, or not? 

    • #15
  16. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Good point about the distinction predating Christianity, but maybe that distinction is not so much Celts vs Germans but highly organized and urbanized cultures vs not-so-organized and not-so-urbanized ones. Which I suspect would have us going in circles.

    Eh, the Celt v. German distinction maps the Roman-era organized v. disorganized distinction in Europe, so it’s hard to piece out which one is controlling. On the other hand, it has really only been in the last 300 years that the minimally/never-Roman (eventually Protestant) parts of Europe have become richer than the Roman and Roman Catholic parts. Either Germanic speaking peoples are only enterprising under Protestantism or religion isn’t nearly as controlling a factor of a country’s wealth as the “Protestant work ethic” theory would suggest.

    • #16
  17. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    iWe (View Comment):

    Super post, thank you!

    I do think that believing we can carve our own futures makes it more likely that we will do so. If you believe in fate or destiny, then there is much less mobility.

    Does grace come from good works, or not?

    As a Lutheran, no. Grace is a completely undeserved gift, and all our good works are as used tampons (to update the language only slightly) in terms of earning our grace.  That being said, because we have been given unmerited forgiveness, we should be inspired to do good works, just as in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, the servant who was forgiven a debt he would have been unable to repay with generations of work should have forgiven the tiny debt his own debtor owed him.

    • #17
  18. James Gawron Thatcher
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Pietism is another form of the Arminian heresy

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Now, maybe it’s religious thing in that both Romans and Celts had a tradition of pagan priesthood that didn’t exist in German and Scandinavian pagan cultures,

    Amy,

    With all due respect, you seem to be swerving between a very narrow view of theology and an evolutionary historicism. I don’t think the two things are compatible at all. If you wish to assert Lutheran doctrinal supremacy and then follow up with a grand historical explanation that would have made Marx or Nietzsche happy I’m not buying it.

    My point is that it’s not a work ethic at all. Weber isn’t accepting anything that is fundamental to the new Protestant theology. He’s blowing sophisticated social scientific blarney. This is why we can’t stay on track. It’s the ethic in the ethics that matters not the work. He is a very subtle secularist salesman. His future customers will be Bolsheviks and Nazis. They’ll just boil it all down to work and skip the ethics entirely.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #18
  19. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Pietism is another form of the Arminian heresy

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    Now, maybe it’s religious thing in that both Romans and Celts had a tradition of pagan priesthood that didn’t exist in German and Scandinavian pagan cultures,

    Amy,

    With all due respect, you seem to be swerving between a very narrow view of theology and an evolutionary historicism. I don’t think the two things are compatible at all. If you wish to assert Lutheran doctrinal supremacy and then follow up with a grand historical explanation that would have made Marx or Nietzsche happy I’m not buying it.

    My point is that it’s not a work ethic at all. Weber isn’t accepting anything that is fundamental to the new Protestant theology. He’s blowing sophisticated social scientific blarney. This is why we can’t stay on track. It’s the ethic in the ethics that matters not the work. He is a very subtle secularist salesman. His future customers will be Bolsheviks and Nazis. They’ll just boil it all down to work and skip the ethics entirely.

    Regards,

    Jim

    On the historic side, I’m just throwing out ideas. I literally don’t know which if any of the factors I’ve talked about might explain the wealth differences between historically Protestant and Catholic Europe. I’m mostly trying to note as many factors as I can that might explain the distinction without it coming down to Weber’s misunderstanding and misuse of Protestant theology.  What expertise I have in history tells me that pat explanations, particularly when they tickle the prejudiced ear, are often wrong. It’s why I asked if anyone knows of a source that refutes Weber’s theory with actual research or facts.

    That being said, cultural artifacts can last a surprisingly long time — after all, tomorrow is Tyr’s Day and good luck finding someone who actually knows who Tyr was. I don’t think it’s likely that a lingering Germanic suspicion of a priestly caste was part of why they became Protestant when Celtic-descended people didn’t, but history is full of weird things that you wouldn’t think would happen. I wouldn’t have thought that the elites of a tribe of steppe-nomads would convert en masse to Judaism, but they did. I wouldn’t think that you could draw a dividing line between Asian cultures that drink vodka and those that smoke hashish to predict which groups of barbarians would become Christian or Muslim, but you can. History is weird and unpredictable because people are weird and unpredictable.

    On the theology side, I don’t claim any expertise — I am at best a moderately educated lay person. You asked what my view of Pietism is; I gave you my answer to the best of my knowledge. 

    • #19
  20. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    May God’s blessings be upon you and may your hard and generous work make those blessons enrich your lives and those among you.

    • #20
  21. Nick H Coolidge
    Nick H
    @NickH

    The problem with explanations is that people get focused on one particular reason and then treat the competing theories as exclusionary. Was it this theology or that theology or geography or leadership? Probably all of them played a role. Embrace “and” and all that. Is a cookie a cookie because of the flour? Or is it the sugar and butter? Chocolate chips or nuts? (Just don’t put raisins in them.) There can be lots of factors and it’s not possible to say what is “the one” reason.

    The other problem with simple explanations applied to populations is the people. One explanation might be true for one person and another might be true for their neighbor. Same end result, different cause. Think of people at a concert. Some people are there because of how the music makes them feel. They connect with the lyrics or relate the songs with an important time in their life. Others go for the show. They’re all about the performance. Someone there might just like the vocals while another person thinks the drummer has a unique style. Whatever the reason, they’re all at the concert, singing along and having fun.

    For some people, and to some extent, Weber is probably right. The Protestant work ethic made a difference. For someone else it was an insignificant factor. Jonah Goldberg made a good attempt at explaining it all without using religion as a factor in The Suicide of the West, so it’s certainly possible to make the argument that the Protestant work ethic wasn’t the only factor that mattered. But even he had to concede that it was a factor to consider.

    • #21
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    It’s why I asked if anyone knows of a source that refutes Weber’s theory with actual research or facts.

    This 2013 study by a Davide Cantoni seems to have generated a lot of comments on the webosphere:  The Economic Effects of the Protestant Reformation: Testing the Weber Hypothesis in the German Lands.Abstract:

    Following Max Weber, many theories have hypothesized that Protestantism should have favored economic development. With its religious heterogeneity, the Holy Roman Empire presents an ideal testing ground for this hypothesis. Using population figures of 272 cities in the years 1300–1900, I find no effects of Protestantism on economic growth. The finding is precisely estimated, robust to the inclusion of various controls, and does not depend on data selection or small sample size. Protestantism has no effect when interacted with other likelydeterminants of economic development. Instrumental variables estimates, considering the potential endogeneity of religious choice, are similar to the OLS results.

    • #22
  23. Amy Schley Moderator
    Amy Schley
    @AmySchley

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    Amy Schley (View Comment):
    It’s why I asked if anyone knows of a source that refutes Weber’s theory with actual research or facts.

    This 2013 study by a Davide Cantoni seems to have generated a lot of comments on the webosphere: The Economic Effects of the Protestant Reformation: Testing the Weber Hypothesis in the German Lands.Abstract:

    Following Max Weber, many theories have hypothesized that Protestantism should have favored economic development. With its religious heterogeneity, the Holy Roman Empire presents an ideal testing ground for this hypothesis. Using population figures of 272 cities in the years 1300–1900, I find no effects of Protestantism on economic growth. The finding is precisely estimated, robust to the inclusion of various controls, and does not depend on data selection or small sample size. Protestantism has no effect when interacted with other likelydeterminants of economic development. Instrumental variables estimates, considering the potential endogeneity of religious choice, are similar to the OLS results.

    Thank you! That is exactly the research I was hoping someone had already done, and I can’t say I’m terribly surprised by the results. What makes one group rich and another poor just has too many variables for any one factor, even one as important as religion, to be controlling. 

    • #23
  24. Hypatia Inactive
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    I’m pretty sure it’s Thomas Cahill who pointed out in one of his books that by the  time of the Reformation, sixteenth century, the hard backbreaking work of clearing Europe for agriculture had already been done, mostly by the great monasteries.   It was Catholic monarchs, and laypeople, who took over and improved on the foundation of infrastructure laid by pagan, later Christian, Rome.  I’m not a Catholic, but I see his  point.

    • #24
  25. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    The exiling of religious dissidents from France, specifically the Huguenots, is often mentioned as a causative factor for why the industrial revolution occurred in Britain rather than there.  Discussion of this and other factors at Michael Kennedy’s post Bourgeois Dignity.

    • #25
  26. Shawn Buell (Majestyk) Contributor
    Shawn Buell (Majestyk)
    @Majestyk

    Perhaps it’s not the Protestant work ethic as much as the penchant for Protestant heterodoxy which was a larger contributor to Northern Europe’s economic ascension over its Southern, more Catholic neighbors.

    The ideas of centralized ideological control, strict adherence to dogma and repression of free-thinking weren’t merely religious strictures: they were economic and social realities in the more Catholic nations as well.  The Dutch and English started to run rings around everybody else once heterodoxy was unleashed, all of which became possible because of the existence of the Printing Press which ultimately spawned the Protestant Reformation and the thousand flowers which bloomed in its wake.

    • #26
  27. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Amy Schley: Let’s start with the most obvious: geography. Being in different locations with different access to seaports, prevailing winds, trade routes, and natural resources like crops, fishing, wood, stone, and ore — of course the people of the British Isles, Scandinavia, and northern Germany are going to have different levels of wealth from those of Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, and Poland, who in turn are going to have different levels of wealth from Russia, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania. And not only do the different Christian denomination countries have different levels of wealth, they’ve changed quite dramatically relative to each other. Italy was in an excellent spot to take advantage of the winds and currents on the Mediterranean when most European trade came through Constantinople and so was rich while England was poor; England was in an excellent spot to take advantage of the trade winds and currents going to the Americas and so was rich while Italy was poor.

    Consider growing season length. 

    It’s going to do several things.

    First, in places with a short growing season, it creates pressure to develop a culture that delays gratification.

    Second, once international trade is significant, it places the locals at a comparative disadvantage in agriculture but that may mean a comparative advantage in other things like manufacturing that, in turn, place further pressures on cultural development.

    • #27
  28. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    I’m pretty sure it’s Thomas Cahill who pointed out in one of his books that by the time of the Reformation, sixteenth century, the hard backbreaking work of clearing Europe for agriculukture had already been done, mostly by the great monasteries.

    The monasteries also played an important role in the development of waterpower.  See ‘Stronger than a Hundred Men,’ by Terry Reynolds.  He also suggests that the symbol system of Christianity…Jesus the carpenter…helped make  it possible for people to do manual work without losing status.

    It’s been argued that the destruction of the monasteries in England by Henry VIII effectively delayed the Industrial Revolution from when it otherwise would have happened.

    • #28
  29. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    See also this post, which cites the historian of technology D S Cardwell.  The author observes that during the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state of French science and mathematics was very advanced–more so than that in Britain–and asks the question: Why was industrial development in Britain so much more successful than that in France?

    He suggests three reasons.

    https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10688.html

     

     

    • #29
  30. RossC Inactive
    RossC
    @Rossi

    Thanks for the interesting post.

    I wonder what should one do if Weber’s theory is true?

    If I am Catholic would Weber advise I convert and thereby become more prosperous?

    Asians (at least in America) and Jews are even more prosperous than protestants should I skip Protestantism for Abraham or Confucius?

    On the other hand, Islamic countries of any great size are generally poor, is Protestantism the foreign aid that finally cracks that nut?  Maybe it is.

    When I think of it that way it seems a little silly to me, but I don’t know. 

    I would define a myth as a narrative story that provides a reasonable explanation for some natural phenomenon.  It kind of sounds like that…or maybe it’s like science.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.