Ep. 250 - Dr. Lloyd Barba "Sanctuary in America" pt. 1

[00:00:00] So why accompaniment? Not just because it sounds like a kumbayala told hand, it sounds sort of Christianese if you will, but the argument leveraged by sanctuary supporters is that this is deeply a biblical commandment. So we have multiple examples in the Hebrew Bible. You can draw from Leviticus, from Exodus, right? Often the verses people will turn to for sort of this really sort of stern Christianity, right? You also have mixed in those are the commandment to not oppress the

[00:00:27] stranger or to treat the stranger as you would treat your own, for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. And so you have these words that are directly mosaic law, if you want to put it that way, it's directly from the Lord speaking to Moses, you know, as the tradition goes. And it's also really clear in the New Testament. Welcome to The Deconstructionists. I'm your host, John

[00:00:52] Williamson. And throughout history, some of the most powerful movements for justice have begun with a simple but dangerous question. What happens when the laws of a nation come into conflict with the demands of our conscience? And perhaps even more importantly, what happens when people of faith decide that doing what is right matters more than doing what is legal? In the 1980s, as thousands of people fled violence, persecution, and civil wars in Central America, an extraordinary movement began

[00:01:21] taking shape across the United States. Churches, religious leaders, and ordinary people began opening their doors to refugees, offering protection and shelter, even when doing so meant risking arrest and prosecution by their own government. It became known as the sanctuary movement. But this wasn't simply a story about immigration. It was a story about faith, power, political resistance, and the radical idea that

[00:01:47] religious conviction sometimes demands more than simply believing the right things. Today, we're joined by historian Dr. Lloyd Barba, author of Sanctuary in America, how activists defied the government and defended immigrants and why it still matters. In the first part of our conversation, we'll explore the origins of the sanctuary movement, the people who risked everything to protect their neighbors, and the complicated

[00:02:11] relationship between American Christianity and the machinery of political power. And before we jump in, a quick reminder that our brand new podcast, This Is Who We Become, is getting closer to launch. We've already begun announcing some of our first guests, including NASA scientist Dr. Christina Thomas, survivor and advocate Angela Harker-Thompson, and acclaimed author and former gang member Luis J. Rodriguez.

[00:02:38] This new show is about the moments that change us forever, the experiences that reshape our understanding of ourselves, and the remarkable ways people rebuild their lives. Every life has a before, every life has an after. And we're incredibly excited about the conversations we've already recorded. And there are some extraordinary stories coming your way. So head on over to thisiswhowebecome.com and subscribe to our free mailing list.

[00:03:05] You'll get guest announcements, behind-the-scenes updates, and be among the first to know when the show launches. And please, share it with somebody you think would love these kinds of conversations. Your support is helping us build this new community, and that means the world to me. All right, let's get into part one

[00:03:22] of my conversation with Dr. Lloyd Barba. All right, welcome to the podcast. I've got Lloyd Barba joining me today. Thank you so much for spending some time with me today. John, thanks for having me. I'm really excited about this. Absolutely. So before we get into the book, tell people a little bit

[00:03:47] about who you are and some of your background. Sure. So my name is Lloyd Barba, as John has mentioned. And I am a professor of, well, actually just recently tenured as of a couple months ago, so still riding the highway of religion at Amherst College. So the field in which I'm situated, it's the line's called Religion in the Americas. So presumably I cover everything from Canada to

[00:04:13] Chile, which has quite a bit to do. But primarily it's a U.S. religion. And so in this capacity, as well, my guest, a professor teaches. And so I do quite a bit of that. Courses I teach, one of them is on the history of evangelicalism. And another one that's regularly taught is pertinent to today's book that we'll be discussing. It's on sanctuary. I've also taught courses on religion and

[00:04:37] immigration. One of my favorites is The End of the World. And in it, we do watch the Left Behind movie, the one with Kirk Cameron, not the later one with Nicolas Cage. You know, it totally fits in with the theme of the class on Left Behind. So we get a long history of the end of the world. And yeah, beside that, other sort of stock courses, trying to answer what is religion and introduction to religion.

[00:05:02] And yeah, it's fun. I really enjoy what I do here. And my research is on, you can probably guess, religion and immigration, but I also do quite a bit of work on evangelicalism, specifically the Pentecostal tradition. And so that's a little bit of, yeah, the work that I do here at the college. Awesome. My ears perked up when you said history of evangelicalism. I've been looking for a scholar on that for a while for this other podcast project. So I might hit you up for that. All right. Let me know.

[00:05:29] Absolutely. So, you know, I think one of the things that struck me about the book is that it sort of complicates the dominant American story about religion and politics. We often talk about the religious right, Christian nationalism, and exclusionary uses of faith. But their history shows congregations using religion in almost the opposite direction as a source of dissent, solidarity, and collective care. That's one of the book's explicit arguments.

[00:05:56] So for people who hear the term, quote, sanctuary city constantly, but really have no idea where it came from, what did sanctuary originally mean in this American movement? I mean, this is why we wrote the book. In large part, there is so much, not just misunderstanding, but I think at some point, especially when we get to some of the later chapters in the book, I wouldn't even say misinformation, but just straight up disinformation. The idea of trying

[00:06:24] to tell a different story of what sanctuary is versus what it is on paper, how it's been in practice. So in this book on sanctuary, one of the main contentions is that sanctuary lies at this nexus of religion, immigration, and state power. And it's pretty clear from the outset. So there's a longer history of sanctuary, which we briefly discussed in the book where you have in the 1980s, again,

[00:06:49] that's sort of the opening episode of the book. That is once you get into the content, past introduction, right? The 1980s, this period in which mostly churches, but also a large number of synagogues and churches came together to make the point that they would offer sanctuary to Central Americans, specifically Guatemalans and Salvadorans fleeing civil wars. They said,

[00:07:17] these are textbook examples of refugees and the government is not providing refuge to them. So we're going to take it upon ourselves. We could talk more later about why they didn't provide a refuge, but really what we see is a challenge to state power in this sanctuary history. And in a nutshell, you could think of sanctuary, sort of its core practice that people might think of with sanctuary

[00:07:39] is this idea that taking shelter, taking refuge in a church building as a sort of, you know, the staying image, if you will, of sanctuary, going back to medieval history. And, you know, as we discussed in the book, this is a much longer history that goes back to the idea of sanctuary or rather cities of

[00:08:02] refuge in the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible from the Numbers and Leviticus and Joshua, this idea that one can go to a city of refuge for mediation. And so we see the folks in the 1980s taking up that mantle, as well as later, we can discuss this later as well, proponents within a new sanctuary movement, making the case. So from 2007 onward, that we need to shelter people from deportation because they're

[00:08:32] separated from their families. So to put a very concise at the heart of it, you see a constellation of different practices, accompaniment, helping people, you know, navigate the, really the legal morass that is our immigration system. But at the center of it is this practice of accompaniment and providing shelter, refuge for people in a house of worship while they

[00:09:01] weighed out the deportation orders. So it worked in the 80s, it's worked in a new sanctuary movement, but it's much larger than that. It's just what most people think of. And well, it's other version of it that we might hear more of in the media today is sanctuary cities that the cities are harboring, intentionally harboring criminals. And if you read actual sanctuary resolutions, there's,

[00:09:24] that's not built into, into a sanctuary city apparatus in any way, but that's not what we're told. So I'll leave it at that for now. Right. Yeah. I think, um, I, obviously there's a lot of politic, uh, politicization, um, that, that comes along with it. Um, but I like, I like that idea of almost, uh, and a walking alongside because, you know, I had a, I had a pastor years ago who, um, he was from

[00:09:50] Ireland, his wife was from Australia and they actually talked openly about the immigration process and just, um, illuminated. I think a lot of people who just have no understanding of what the legal system looks like and how, uh, far behind we are the, the waiting lists, um, the immense legal fees that are involved. Um, like you have to have some money if you want to efficiently work through the system. And most people don't, especially if you're fleeing from a war torn country. And so I

[00:10:20] think, you know, sometimes people don't think about that when they sort of react to this idea of a sanctuary city or a sanctuary, you know, um, in general. Right. And then, um, there is really very little, uh, delineation in the sort of the popular media discourse of whether we're talking about a sanctuary city, a sanctuary congregation, a sanctuary campus, and they all sort of get melded

[00:10:44] together. And the sticking narrative that I think in the past 10 years that, uh, Trumpism has ascribed to sanctuary is that it's crime or it's a place of crime. It's a place that fosters crime. And I mean, one can look, especially at his 2024 campaign speeches and sanctuary was part of shtick. It was quite frequently cited as a place of crime because the whole thing was Biden led in migrant crime. And

[00:11:09] then he took pride in, in, in, in coining what he called Biden migrant crime. And so for, for Trump sort of sanctuary has become the boogeyman at this point. Um, and the thing to be dealt with in this second administration. Yeah. And it's, it's really, um, it's, it's really sad and, and sort of concerning that we have taken this thing that, you know, uh, effectively should be a part of the Christian creed, you know, um, helping

[00:11:39] those who are less fortunate than us. Um, you know, the, the, the verse you were once a stranger in a strange land comes to mind, you know, and yet we've turned into a political pawn and overgeneralized this entire population of people who, um, largely are not criminals and are just seeking a better life, just like a lot of our forefathers did, you know. Exactly. I agree. Um, that's the case with my

[00:12:03] parents who came to the United States from Mexico in the, uh, seventies, right? It was very different. They didn't come as refugees, um, you know, fleeing persecution in, in central America, but it's a story that says old as the United States, right? Um, even the, the, the, the settling of the American colonies is that people came fleeing persecution and it's actually used that, that, that, that sort

[00:12:28] of mythos, if you will, of American history is mobilized by some sanctuary supporters back in the eighties. So we'll say our very country is founded on this idea of fleeing tyrants, of fleeing religious persecution. You have places like the new Haven colony, cause it was a haven for people fleeing persecution. So it's, it's built into the DNA of this country even. Yeah, absolutely. We tend to forget the history though a little bit when it's convenient. Yeah, I was gonna say when it's convenient. Exactly.

[00:12:56] Yeah. Yeah. As a history, as a history nerd, that bothers me greatly. I think history is very important. I agree. So there's an enormous difference between, uh, charity and solidarity. Christianity is often very comfortable feeding someone, clothing someone, writing a check. Uh, but solidarity can mean sharing risk with them. Um, is that where sanctuary becomes dangerous to power? I think that's a perfect way of putting it. And in fact, solidarity is one of the key terms used by, again, these sanctuary organizers.

[00:13:26] And one of the ways that we develop it a bit more in the book is this idea of accompaniment. So why accompaniment? Not just because it sounds like a kumbayala told hand, it sounds sort of Christianese, if you will. But the argument leveraged by sanctuary supporters is that this is deeply a biblical commandment. So we have multiple examples in the Hebrew Bible. And we can draw from a Leviticus, from Exodus, right? Often the verses people will turn to for sort of this really sort of stern

[00:13:56] Christianity, right? You also have mixed in those are the commandment to not the, to not oppress the stranger or to treat the stranger as you would treat your own for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt. And so you have these words that are directly mosaic law. If you want to put it that way, it's directly from the Lord speaking to Moses, you know, as a tradition goes. And it's also really

[00:14:19] clear in the new Testament. We have this idea and I believe it's in Hebrews 13, two that, um, you know, to, to not neglect, to show hospitality for sometimes people have entertained angels unaware. And so in that idea is that also Matthew 25, Jesus saying, you know, to, um, I was, I was sick and in prison and he visited me. Um, I was without food and you gave me, and you gave me food. And importantly,

[00:14:47] I was a stranger and you welcomed me. So that idea of solidarity is again, as you put it, it's trans, it transcends the charity. We're just going to hand you, give you a handout. Let's, if you're hungry, we'll give you a hamburger. No, it's walking alongside. And if you want to, again, bring some theological terms to this, it's sort of an incarnational theology where Jesus, as Jesus walked alongside us on, on, on earth, where to walk alongside those who are oppressed, who are homeless,

[00:15:14] who are in need the Matthew 25, Jesus, right? When, um, the, the, the, the, the goats on the left hander ask, when did we see you naked or, or homeless or in, in prison? And Jesus says, as much as he didn't do it to one of the least of these, my brethren, he didn't do it to me. So accompaniment is really, really biblical to its core. And yeah, I I'd say it really does override this idea of,

[00:15:41] of charity. And it's pretty clear in, in, in the book that we've written in the sense that there's often this idea of a paternalistic relationship between sanctuary organizers who are largely white, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant. Of course there are Jewish, um, sanctuary organizers as well. And there's Catholic ones, but rather than a, a charity sort of, we're going to provide a space for central American refugees and give them a place to stay for a little bit and then send them on their way.

[00:16:07] What we see rather is a solidarity where they invite the refugees again, number one, they were invited because of the testimonies that they offered in the first place about persecution. Then they come, they bring a lot of leadership capacity to sanctuary organizing, both in the eighties and in the past, um, 20 years of new sanctuary movement organizing. And we actually start the book off with a story of, of a sanctuary leader in the new sanctuary movement under Trump. And so that, that's essential. And that's one of the things we do want to highlight. So thanks for noticing that.

[00:16:38] Yeah, absolutely. And it just, it, it makes me think of, you know, you mentioned true, like real actual persecution. I think so often today, you know, this gets, it gets watered down and diluted in our society. You know, you hear a lot of Christians, uh, who are up in arms because Starbucks took, you know, some Christian symbol off the coffee cup. And it's just like that, no, that's not the same thing. You know, one is some more, uh, red letters and red cups,

[00:17:05] I suppose. In that case, you're like, come on. Um, there's real persecution happening. And those are the people we need to, to, to be looking out for. Um, is there a point when Christian charity that refuses to confront the conditions creating the suffering becomes a way of avoiding the harder work of justice? Yeah, that's a great question. And I want to answer this in at least

[00:17:30] two ways. So first one is one, you can often think of charity doing the work of sort of just putting a bandaid right on a situation. In this case, we had literally folks bleeding out. Um, one of the stories that mobilized sanctuary organizers, um, in 19, in the early 1980s, um, there was a, uh, Salvadoran refugee who had come across the border and still with the bullet

[00:17:56] wound in the lodged or a bullet wound in his rib cage. And he arrives to a legal aid clinic in Tucson. And the folks are just thinking like, what is possibly going on? Right. That he's not the first person to know it. They know of that, that are arriving from, in this case, El Salvador with serious bodily injury. Um, and there's also cases where, um, you know, some of the refugees are speaking to journalists and again, bullet wound, it's a scars where they've been tortured, where

[00:18:23] they've received electric shocks. Um, they again, just tortured and mutilated in, in, in jail. And so one can say, oh, we'll just take care of these individual causes as people are coming over and again, just kind of send them on their way. But what sanctuary seeks to do is to address this by not just providing humanitarian relief or, you know, mounting humanitarian efforts to help the folks who have come over and get them legal aid. But importantly,

[00:18:52] sanctuary, um, also is about calling, uh, attention to the largest structural injustices. So in this case, if they're listening to the stories of refugees, right, not just the torture and everything else, but they're saying it's happening because this is largely state sanctioned violence. Then it's the job of sanctuary organizers to provide a platform for the refugees to speak out.

[00:19:17] And so you have a whole host of testimonies. I mean, some of the refugees go on, um, basically on circuits, speaking circuits, um, from one congregation to the next, speaking about the violence that they win as firsthand. And I think that's some of the work of justice that, that needed to be done, right. To call attention to us intervention of finances of weapons and trainings in the central American proxy wars, which now, I mean, years later with hindsight, we have pretty, we have really strong

[00:19:45] evidence of just the scale of us intervention in central America, in central America in the eighties, billions of dollars sent to, to, you know, in the name of cold war, let's stamp out communism. And, uh, just the, the, uh, thousands of lives perished because of this effort. So that's where I think that they get to the, to sort of the root cause with this effort to address the injustices. I hope that makes sense.

[00:20:14] Yeah. I think, I think, uh, if I could sum up a little bit, like, I think you're saying that we created our own problem. So look, yes, no, we created our problem. And we also, when people were arriving in the U S and in the eighties as textbook examples of refugees, we didn't want to address the problem. So if you look at the percentage of, of, uh, Salvadorans who, and Guatemalans who received asylum in the 1980s,

[00:20:41] we're looking at under it's under two, two percent for Guatemalans and under three percent for Salvadorans. It was to the point that you were so unlikely to get it, that people weren't even applying to it. And I was just today actually reading, uh, back and forth between an INS, um, director and a, um, a clergyman from the 1980s from New York city. They're going back and forth, having a debate. And I was reading the transcript and the, uh, INS officer says, well, we have a system

[00:21:07] in place. We have a whole refugee system. And the clergyman, um, the, uh, Reverend William Sloan Coffin Jr. Replied, yes, it's a refugee system we have in place, but it's politicized. 71% of Iranians are getting, uh, refugee status in the 1980s, but central Americans, you have virtually no chance of getting it unless you're coming from a country where a communist government has uprooted you. And in the case of Guatemala and Salvador, it was the opposites, right-wing

[00:21:34] dictatorships that the U S was, was backing that was causing this massive uprooting of refugees, but regular administration couldn't say, oh, those are refugees. Cause at the same time, they were providing the funds, the, the weapons, the training. And yeah, it's, um, it's a pretty sad record. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it, it, it just kind of, uh, promotes this idea that, you know,

[00:21:59] the, the sanctuary city sanctuary churches, um, would not need to exist if we had a better system by which we could, you know, um, you know, again, everybody, the one thing I want to mention is that everybody points out, well, they, they, you know, uh, immigrants, when they come in, they just need to do it legally without realizing just how broken this current system is. And so I keep saying like, if you, if that really means so much to you, then what you really ought to be doing is pressing your

[00:22:28] congressperson to, uh, actually do something about the current system. Because I think last time I checked and you could correct me on this, but, um, there hasn't been any substantial change to the laws in place for decades and it's vastly outdated. And so, yeah, if you want people to do it legally, then you have to have a process that actually works in order for people to do it legally. Or as you said, the example that you gave, it's like, yeah, um, there is a process,

[00:22:55] but it stinks quite frankly. And, and it leaves a lot of people waiting. And in a lot of situations, they're waiting so long that their visas expire. And, you know, and those are the people that are now being, uh, sent back to the very country they were escaping violence from. Exactly. At the, at the same time, the sanctuary has become this word that, uh, um, a word of disparagement also, I mean, I hear very few and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I hear, I hear very

[00:23:24] little chatter of the word. I'm gonna have to whisper it. Amnesty, right? That was all the talk about, uh, 20 years ago or end of the Bush era into the bombing years about amnesty. That word is almost virtually gone from a vocabulary at this point, at least in the political discourse. And that's just a word that I think we moved so far, right on this immigration, uh, discourse that to bring us something like that folks is balk at that term. I mean, the last substantial

[00:23:51] immigration reform we had was 1986. Even then it didn't address the concern of Central Americans. It largely excluded them because it only applied to people coming in before, I believe, January 1st, 1982. And that excluded the, again, the large influx of Central Americans. So we are severely overdue for some immigration reform. Yeah, absolutely. And it's interesting, interesting too, because if people go back and look at

[00:24:15] sort of the history of our, um, legal system, you know, for, uh, as it pertains to immigration over the years, there was a time when, um, if you were Italian, which we would consider to be Caucasian now, right? Like, but they weren't considered the right type of white, um, you know, wait, you know, ages ago. And so they were not allowed to immigrate into the United States. You had to be a very specific type of Caucasian order to get in. So like, we've have a long history of

[00:24:43] laws that just, you know, exclude one group or another for some particular reason. Um, and we're still to your point, 1986, that is, that's bad. Yeah. And I would argue the more substantial one, that goes back to 1965 with Immigration and Nationality Act. That's the one that really does, it gets rid of the quotas from the 1924, uh, Immigration Act that for 40 year period, really strict quotas on who could come in, but 65 changes things quite dramatically. So, I mean,

[00:25:14] yeah, 86, we had an amnesty, but I really think sort of the main, the more dramatic one was 1965. But, um, yeah, way overdue. Yeah. A little bit. So, um, one of the strongest theological threads in the book is just how much scriptural language sanctuary activists had available to them. The, you know, you mentioned some of them up top, you know, the, the stranger and sojourner cities of refuge, Abraham and Sarah welcoming strangers. The good Samaritan is one of my favorite examples.

[00:25:44] Uh, prophetic resistance. Um, the authors write that these passages left relatively little ambiguity, which is odd for the Bible. Cause there's tons of ambiguity throughout. But they left very little ambiguity for many sanctuary advocates about their obligation towards vulnerable migrants. So I would ask you this, when you look at the biblical material around immigrants, uh, strangers, refugees, how difficult is it to build a biblical case for indifference?

[00:26:14] So in indifference to immigration or, or sort of, yeah. Oh man, this is. Cause it feels like one area where, you know, people like to throw around the phrase, uh, the Bible is clear. Well, my goodness, not really in a lot of areas, but in this area, it feels pretty clear. No, I got really excited when you asked me that question. Um, this is a topic that I was writing about, uh, last semester. And so this is how I've come to see it, John.

[00:26:44] This is the case in the 1980s, but also in the new sanctuary movement. Um, you could even trace this more recently to, um, you know, um, the, the rise of, of sort of MAGA, right. And, and Trumpism and the, the people that Trump surrounds himself, the, the people, the, the, the, the Christian that Trump surround themselves with. There's really one main point that is repeated over and over.

[00:27:13] It's a two-step move. Okay. The first is to say, if the sanctuary organizing happening in these congregations is religious, well, they're, they're out of line with Romans 13, which says to, you know, obey the authorities that are in place because God has put them in there. Number one, let's just go back to Martin Luther King Jr.'s, uh, letter from Birmingham jail. He blows up that argument, right? There, there are just unjust laws, right? To obey them is, it's almost worse to obey these unjust laws,

[00:27:41] right? Then, then to protest against them. And so that's thrown around in the eighties. You see it all the time with even a new sanctuary organizing, which is from again, 2007 until really the, the, the current day. That's one move. The second move is to try to delegitimize the religiosity of the movement altogether, or try to say it's political, but it's masked behind religious trappings,

[00:28:07] or it's masked, you know, uh, behind a religious collar or, or, or clergy. And so on the one hand, I find it fascinating that revel that, that Romans, not Revelation 13, not the Mark of the Beast stuff, uh, that Romans 13 is, is always, uh, quoted to try to delegitimate, um, or, or, or undermine the efforts of sanctuary organizers. And this is what gets me started. This is why I got really, this is why I

[00:28:30] lit up when you asked me the question. So I think when it comes to immigration, hospitality, accompaniment, immigration reform, if you will, right? What our obligation to the other, our obligation to the stranger, or if you want to use Jesus's language from, um, Luke 10 to our neighbor, right? The Samaritan. When it comes to that question of immigration, the quote unquote,

[00:28:58] Bible believing conservatives, the Bible believe fundamentalists, the Bible believing evangelicals, they get out Bibleed by these sometimes I wouldn't even say necessarily liberal. I mean, but in some cases you do have liberal progressive Christians or folks just caring about immigration, immigration. They get out Bibleed so badly on this topic. And I, I have not seen any new arguments

[00:29:23] leveraged using the Bible, um, to really combat a sanctuary. What you've seen in more recent years is I'm sure you've, you've, you've tracked this as well is this idea of like toxic empathy, right? That's out there or that in any way showing empathy or showing love, or we have different circles that we have to show love to not everyone's our neighbor or gradations of our neighbors are. That's just really recent material. I think that is deeply based, um, that is based rather on a

[00:29:50] really deep kind of xenophobia because there really are not good biblical arguments for oppressing the stranger. There are not good biblical arguments for just treating people like trash. And so, um, I'm still working through it, but I do think they get out Bibleed on that one. And I think it's really fascinating because the old adage goes, you know, after the, the debates from fundamentalism and, and modernists, um, the, the fundamentals evangelicals walked away with the Bible,

[00:30:17] but their, uh, progressive counterparts walked away with nature, right? They got nature. They got science behind them and all this cool explanations for, for the earth, the way that is accepting evolution, et cetera, et cetera. But man, they lose the Bible wars on this one. Yeah. And it's pretty bad. I mean, the, the witness, if you will, of the old Testament and the new Testament, it's really robust. Why? Because a Bible as one sanctuary organizer or sanctuary, um, theologian put it in

[00:30:44] the eighties, the book, the Bible is a book written by migrants for migrants. And you get that early on in scripture. You could look at the exile of Adam and Eve from the garden. You can, the calling of Abraham, um, Abraham's, I mean, from, from Isaac to Joseph to Moses, the, it's a migration arc in the Bible. And you see what the Holy family having to flee and to go to Egypt, right?

[00:31:12] If he does, does he know that I'm alive? Does she care that I doubt? Does she care that I fear?

[00:31:34] Something tells. If God has a face, his face must look like yours. Did God kill his kids?

[00:32:32] Have to have blood before? It looks like it's not. Has a face, her face must look like yours.

[00:33:53] Like a Tina, an Ahmed or Mildred, a Russ and his husband, Gus and their children. Face like a Kim, a Ted or Tyrone, an extra chromosome.