What do you think?
Rate this book
Regaining Balance: The Evolution of the UUA
The author details the cultural, philosophical and political history of the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) especially in regards to Humanism and critical thinking. The evolution of the UUA from a focus on reason in religion to one of radical tolerance is described along with the loss on membership. Culturally important factors such as postmodernism, process theology, second wave feminism, value theory, new age, theological education, the “religious redefinition” game, population dynamics, and the age of narcissism in religion are brought together to show how multiple interacting forces have led to the UUA to ideological extremes of indiscriminate pluralism. The secular revolution is then described and possible solutions for the UUA going forward presented.
Paperback
First published January 1, 2013
5 people are currently reading
23 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
July 27, 2016
The author admits this is a polemic for a particular vision of Unitarian Universalism (UUism). It certainly is that. Significantly, the book is not a polemic for humanism as one source among many for the progressive UU religion (as it is now). Rather, in Werner's own words he seeks a UUism "intentionally focusing on reason in religion and Humanism."
On occasion Werner expresses discomfort that he might be called an exclusivist or intolerant of other UU religious sources (mysticism, nature-based religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) On the whole, however, this book speaks loudly that this is just what he is.
Werner directs his ire at what he calls UU's "radical tolerance" and "indiscriminate pluralism"--neither of which is defined, merely laughed at. He also rants against UU culture that "oozes its nihilistic poison" with "fuzzy theism" and "a one trick pony--that of toleration." It is quite likely, in fact, that unbiased readers may well find themselves quite intolerant indeed of Werner's screed while continuing to welcome humanist perspectives within UUism.
If you already agree with its position, maybe you'll like this book. But even those--like me--who have gratitude for humanist contributions to liberating traditional religion from litmus-test creeds and blind intolerance, may find Werner's reliance on hyperbole and name-calling instead of reason and evidence hard to stomach for long. I certainly did. (Long live pluralism and toleration!)
On occasion Werner expresses discomfort that he might be called an exclusivist or intolerant of other UU religious sources (mysticism, nature-based religion, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, etc.) On the whole, however, this book speaks loudly that this is just what he is.
Werner directs his ire at what he calls UU's "radical tolerance" and "indiscriminate pluralism"--neither of which is defined, merely laughed at. He also rants against UU culture that "oozes its nihilistic poison" with "fuzzy theism" and "a one trick pony--that of toleration." It is quite likely, in fact, that unbiased readers may well find themselves quite intolerant indeed of Werner's screed while continuing to welcome humanist perspectives within UUism.
If you already agree with its position, maybe you'll like this book. But even those--like me--who have gratitude for humanist contributions to liberating traditional religion from litmus-test creeds and blind intolerance, may find Werner's reliance on hyperbole and name-calling instead of reason and evidence hard to stomach for long. I certainly did. (Long live pluralism and toleration!)
August 30, 2013
I just finished this book and it gave me a lot to think about, not just about Unitarian Universalism, of which I am not a member (but my spouse is, and my children have all gone through the Coming of Age and OWL programs) but also about the relationship between Humanism and religion and Humanism and Interfaith.
In my own work as a Humanist I sometimes find myself participating in Interfaith work, because I have a strong inclination towards social justice. As a result of this work I can see the limits of Interfaith work: It's easier to work with those of liberal religious persuasions than it is to work with those of a conservative, orthodox, fundamentalist or ethnic point of view.
For the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), broadening the base and adopting an unrestrained pluralism has weaken and marginalized what once promised to be a rational and Humanistic religion. According to Werner, in rejecting rationality and embracing unrestrained tolerance, the UUA has put itself on a path towards extinction.
One section of particular interest to me was on the use of language. I have long felt that the metaphorical use of words like God, religion, prayer, spirituality and faith is a form of dishonesty when the metaphors are not labeled as such. As Werner says, "Religious language has become a manipulative tool that allows us to pretend we are all talking about the same things when in fact there are irresolvable differences."
Werner also says, "...in UU circles the word God has become an all-purpose enigmatic metaphor. It has become a piety widget."
The book is short, more of an extended essay than a full blown history or critique, but Werner's end notes provide a wealth of interesting sources with which to pursue further information.
I was annoyed by the number of typos in the work, a final, professional proofread would have been an immense improvement, but the book is an essential read for anyone interested in the future of the UUA, Interfaith, liberal religious traditions and the growth of Humanism.
In my own work as a Humanist I sometimes find myself participating in Interfaith work, because I have a strong inclination towards social justice. As a result of this work I can see the limits of Interfaith work: It's easier to work with those of liberal religious persuasions than it is to work with those of a conservative, orthodox, fundamentalist or ethnic point of view.
For the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), broadening the base and adopting an unrestrained pluralism has weaken and marginalized what once promised to be a rational and Humanistic religion. According to Werner, in rejecting rationality and embracing unrestrained tolerance, the UUA has put itself on a path towards extinction.
One section of particular interest to me was on the use of language. I have long felt that the metaphorical use of words like God, religion, prayer, spirituality and faith is a form of dishonesty when the metaphors are not labeled as such. As Werner says, "Religious language has become a manipulative tool that allows us to pretend we are all talking about the same things when in fact there are irresolvable differences."
Werner also says, "...in UU circles the word God has become an all-purpose enigmatic metaphor. It has become a piety widget."
The book is short, more of an extended essay than a full blown history or critique, but Werner's end notes provide a wealth of interesting sources with which to pursue further information.
I was annoyed by the number of typos in the work, a final, professional proofread would have been an immense improvement, but the book is an essential read for anyone interested in the future of the UUA, Interfaith, liberal religious traditions and the growth of Humanism.
September 6, 2014
Sacred Cow Tipping - a review of "Regaining Balance"
I give "Regaining Balance – the Evolution of the UUA", by Michael Werner, two stars out of five. The first star doesn’t count. To submit a rating on Amazon or Goodreads the first star is just a way to ante into the system.
The book deserves the second star for presenting a perspective on the movement of Unitarian Universalism from a denomination which was predominantly a humanist tradition to one that lacks a theological majority and is pluralistic. The way Werner sees it, reason was the leading value for Unitarians in the middle of the 20th Century and membership was growing at the time of the merger and beyond. Membership reached a peak of 177,431 members in 1968 with a “focus on humanism”. Since that time reason has become less valued in favor of a radical tolerance which has led to increasing numbers of theists and other non-humanist views. This set up the conditions where he claims that, “It is unequivocal that Humanism was deliberately and purposely pushed out of the UUA.” Since that time membership has been declining.
The book argues that Unitarian Universalism is headed for extinction and that a return to a focus on humanism is the best hope of reviving our tradition. The perspective, which is too polemic to be taken for a history, does illuminate how frustrating and maddening it must have been for humanists to see control and success slip from their grasp.
The book does not receive a star for charitable treatment of non-humanistic views. New Age beliefs are summarily dismissed as “fanciful optimism based on ungrounded feelings” and the “ugliness of a toxic retreat to a neo-romantic utopianism.” The contribution of Feminism to Unitarian Universalist theology, according to Werner is an open disparagement and hostility to reason. Process Theology is characterized as a “muddle of words and enigmatic distinctions.” Even a theistic approach which acknowledges the importance of scientific knowledge is ridiculed as “intellectually untenable” “God of the Gaps” or just plain “fuzzy theism.” The argumentative technique of the book is to push any competing worldview to extremes and then ridicule it. In an ironically narrow-minded claim, he says, “Frankly, today there is no credible, open-minded intellectual position other than Humanism.”
Reason is presented as the sole evaluative tool for assessing beliefs. Werner does not ask how various beliefs support the congregant, how the belief adds coherency to meaning or which behaviors manifest from the belief.
Then there is the question of what really happened in the UUA. While there is no denying that UUA leadership, Meadville Lombard and Starr King each influence the language and theology within the congregations, those congregations are non-creedal and have, through polity, the authority to call or not call ministers. Regaining Balance would have us believe that the UUA made congregational life for humanists unbearable and they left to be replaced by theistic immigrants from other denominations. While it is true that membership in UU congregations turns over, I do not recall some kind of wholesale replacement of members. While Werner argues that Humanism was the victim of UUA leadership energized by trendy waves of cultural vacuity, a perspective that deserves equal time would ask why Humanism failed. The people in the pews must have drifted away from Humanism because it failed to satisfy in some significant way. The book blames intellectual laziness, but there may be a better answer and the book does not even raise the question.
The book does not receive a star for political acumen. Based primarily on personal anecdotes, Werner ridicules the clergy. Even though I have found sermons in which a minister recounts some personal struggle to be among the most moving, the book mocks the idea of the “wounded healer” as a therapeutic rather than a religious model. He paints a portrait of the minister as a worship leader lacking religious and intellectual integrity, lacking the nerve and courage to speak with a prophetic voice, lacking “critical intelligence” and using “emotionally manipulative” modalities to placate parishioners. “Critical thinking skills largely have been lost,” he says. He further claims to have seen “far too many toxic personalities” in the ministry. Finally, with his repeated refrain, “Follow the Money,” he implies that the theology of UU ministers is shaped by financial concerns, including the prospect of winning the Templeton Prize.
When Werner claims that he “saw a number [of ministers] pass through our church in quick succession,” it is hard not to feel compassion for those religious professionals who were called into such an anti-clerical atmosphere.
If "Regaining Balance" were written by an unknown humanist, it could be taken as just another rant. But since Michael Werner is a past president of the American Humanist Association and a former board member of HUUmanists he speaks with apparent authority. From a political perspective, if the congregations in the UUA are to become more welcoming to humanists and other non-theists, then it will be important to have ministerial buy-in. Humanists will want clergy as allies. The book alienates clergy in the name of humanism. As a result the relationship between clergy and humanists will suffer. As a non-theist with a naturalistic worldview, I am concerned that this book reads as a contemptuous breach of covenant and threatens my standing in the community.
The book does not receive a star for its conclusion. There is the recitation of the three historical values attributed to Unitarianism: Freedom, Reason and Tolerance. Freedom is ignored. Then Reason and Tolerance are ideally presented as being balanced. With a tipped scale on the book cover as an illustration, Werner argues that the value of reason has diminished while the value of tolerance has gone overboard reaching organizational dysfunction with “radical pluralism.” If the UUA is to be revived, the book argues, then we need to collectively assign greater value to reason and to become less tolerant of views which are irrational. Of course, Werner argues, the only credible worldview is humanism.
The Principle behind "Regaining Balance"is the 4th, which affirms a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. The conjunct “free” is ignored and the only responsible way to search for truth turns out to be the scientific method. Ironically, given the title of the book, the result is a disproportionate or unbalanced priority of the 4th Principle at the expense of the first three. The 1st Principle honors the autonomy and ultimate authority of the individual. The 2nd asks us to regard each other with compassion. And the 3rd doesn’t ask us to tolerate each other; rather we covenant to accept each other. We tolerate someone when we “put up with them.” When we accept one another we commit to our relationship and association.
This polemic does raise issues only to shortcut a balanced discussion. We are told that the lack of an articulated identity of our faith is a weakness. And while there are many voices expressing concern about a missing UU identity statement, in our non-creedal tradition the description of our commonality should recite our deepest values, such as those expressed in the Principles, rather than a particular belief or non-belief in some divinity.
The book also alleges that the theology of members is left unchallenged by clergy who lack the skills of critical reasoning. The image rising out of the text is a preacher pointing an accusatory finger from the pulpit at the pews saying, “The God you believe in is not supported by the evidence.” (I further imagine Werner rising in applause and exclaiming, “Finally!”) On the other hand, and despite my caricature, the 3rd Principle not only asks us to accept one another, but also to encourage one another into spiritual growth. I agree with the author when he objects to the statement, “You can believe anything you want.” While undoubtedly true, unbounded permission is essentially unhelpful and an abdication of 3rd Principle responsibility.
There is no real limit to the views one might hold on important and wide-ranging religious questions. But every belief that matters has psychological and behavioral implications. Every worldview carries assumptions and priorities. Every worldview has strengths and weaknesses in the way it informs meaning. What would be both helpful and encouraging, in my opinion, would be more effort toward helping members discover and articulate their beliefs and then providing parishioners with the tools for self-critique.
If you can get past the diatribe, this is a story of grief and sadness over opportunities lost. Unfortunately the text is filled with anger, bitterness, contempt and ridicule. Instead of pointing out the gifts humanists have brought and continue to bring to Unitarian Universalism and asking that our place at the table be treated with respect, Werner upsets the table and calls for intolerance of others. As someone with a similar worldview I am disappointed that Mike Werner decided to go “All-In” as a stereotypical “Angry Humanist.”
9/4/14
I give "Regaining Balance – the Evolution of the UUA", by Michael Werner, two stars out of five. The first star doesn’t count. To submit a rating on Amazon or Goodreads the first star is just a way to ante into the system.
The book deserves the second star for presenting a perspective on the movement of Unitarian Universalism from a denomination which was predominantly a humanist tradition to one that lacks a theological majority and is pluralistic. The way Werner sees it, reason was the leading value for Unitarians in the middle of the 20th Century and membership was growing at the time of the merger and beyond. Membership reached a peak of 177,431 members in 1968 with a “focus on humanism”. Since that time reason has become less valued in favor of a radical tolerance which has led to increasing numbers of theists and other non-humanist views. This set up the conditions where he claims that, “It is unequivocal that Humanism was deliberately and purposely pushed out of the UUA.” Since that time membership has been declining.
The book argues that Unitarian Universalism is headed for extinction and that a return to a focus on humanism is the best hope of reviving our tradition. The perspective, which is too polemic to be taken for a history, does illuminate how frustrating and maddening it must have been for humanists to see control and success slip from their grasp.
The book does not receive a star for charitable treatment of non-humanistic views. New Age beliefs are summarily dismissed as “fanciful optimism based on ungrounded feelings” and the “ugliness of a toxic retreat to a neo-romantic utopianism.” The contribution of Feminism to Unitarian Universalist theology, according to Werner is an open disparagement and hostility to reason. Process Theology is characterized as a “muddle of words and enigmatic distinctions.” Even a theistic approach which acknowledges the importance of scientific knowledge is ridiculed as “intellectually untenable” “God of the Gaps” or just plain “fuzzy theism.” The argumentative technique of the book is to push any competing worldview to extremes and then ridicule it. In an ironically narrow-minded claim, he says, “Frankly, today there is no credible, open-minded intellectual position other than Humanism.”
Reason is presented as the sole evaluative tool for assessing beliefs. Werner does not ask how various beliefs support the congregant, how the belief adds coherency to meaning or which behaviors manifest from the belief.
Then there is the question of what really happened in the UUA. While there is no denying that UUA leadership, Meadville Lombard and Starr King each influence the language and theology within the congregations, those congregations are non-creedal and have, through polity, the authority to call or not call ministers. Regaining Balance would have us believe that the UUA made congregational life for humanists unbearable and they left to be replaced by theistic immigrants from other denominations. While it is true that membership in UU congregations turns over, I do not recall some kind of wholesale replacement of members. While Werner argues that Humanism was the victim of UUA leadership energized by trendy waves of cultural vacuity, a perspective that deserves equal time would ask why Humanism failed. The people in the pews must have drifted away from Humanism because it failed to satisfy in some significant way. The book blames intellectual laziness, but there may be a better answer and the book does not even raise the question.
The book does not receive a star for political acumen. Based primarily on personal anecdotes, Werner ridicules the clergy. Even though I have found sermons in which a minister recounts some personal struggle to be among the most moving, the book mocks the idea of the “wounded healer” as a therapeutic rather than a religious model. He paints a portrait of the minister as a worship leader lacking religious and intellectual integrity, lacking the nerve and courage to speak with a prophetic voice, lacking “critical intelligence” and using “emotionally manipulative” modalities to placate parishioners. “Critical thinking skills largely have been lost,” he says. He further claims to have seen “far too many toxic personalities” in the ministry. Finally, with his repeated refrain, “Follow the Money,” he implies that the theology of UU ministers is shaped by financial concerns, including the prospect of winning the Templeton Prize.
When Werner claims that he “saw a number [of ministers] pass through our church in quick succession,” it is hard not to feel compassion for those religious professionals who were called into such an anti-clerical atmosphere.
If "Regaining Balance" were written by an unknown humanist, it could be taken as just another rant. But since Michael Werner is a past president of the American Humanist Association and a former board member of HUUmanists he speaks with apparent authority. From a political perspective, if the congregations in the UUA are to become more welcoming to humanists and other non-theists, then it will be important to have ministerial buy-in. Humanists will want clergy as allies. The book alienates clergy in the name of humanism. As a result the relationship between clergy and humanists will suffer. As a non-theist with a naturalistic worldview, I am concerned that this book reads as a contemptuous breach of covenant and threatens my standing in the community.
The book does not receive a star for its conclusion. There is the recitation of the three historical values attributed to Unitarianism: Freedom, Reason and Tolerance. Freedom is ignored. Then Reason and Tolerance are ideally presented as being balanced. With a tipped scale on the book cover as an illustration, Werner argues that the value of reason has diminished while the value of tolerance has gone overboard reaching organizational dysfunction with “radical pluralism.” If the UUA is to be revived, the book argues, then we need to collectively assign greater value to reason and to become less tolerant of views which are irrational. Of course, Werner argues, the only credible worldview is humanism.
The Principle behind "Regaining Balance"is the 4th, which affirms a free and responsible search for truth and meaning. The conjunct “free” is ignored and the only responsible way to search for truth turns out to be the scientific method. Ironically, given the title of the book, the result is a disproportionate or unbalanced priority of the 4th Principle at the expense of the first three. The 1st Principle honors the autonomy and ultimate authority of the individual. The 2nd asks us to regard each other with compassion. And the 3rd doesn’t ask us to tolerate each other; rather we covenant to accept each other. We tolerate someone when we “put up with them.” When we accept one another we commit to our relationship and association.
This polemic does raise issues only to shortcut a balanced discussion. We are told that the lack of an articulated identity of our faith is a weakness. And while there are many voices expressing concern about a missing UU identity statement, in our non-creedal tradition the description of our commonality should recite our deepest values, such as those expressed in the Principles, rather than a particular belief or non-belief in some divinity.
The book also alleges that the theology of members is left unchallenged by clergy who lack the skills of critical reasoning. The image rising out of the text is a preacher pointing an accusatory finger from the pulpit at the pews saying, “The God you believe in is not supported by the evidence.” (I further imagine Werner rising in applause and exclaiming, “Finally!”) On the other hand, and despite my caricature, the 3rd Principle not only asks us to accept one another, but also to encourage one another into spiritual growth. I agree with the author when he objects to the statement, “You can believe anything you want.” While undoubtedly true, unbounded permission is essentially unhelpful and an abdication of 3rd Principle responsibility.
There is no real limit to the views one might hold on important and wide-ranging religious questions. But every belief that matters has psychological and behavioral implications. Every worldview carries assumptions and priorities. Every worldview has strengths and weaknesses in the way it informs meaning. What would be both helpful and encouraging, in my opinion, would be more effort toward helping members discover and articulate their beliefs and then providing parishioners with the tools for self-critique.
If you can get past the diatribe, this is a story of grief and sadness over opportunities lost. Unfortunately the text is filled with anger, bitterness, contempt and ridicule. Instead of pointing out the gifts humanists have brought and continue to bring to Unitarian Universalism and asking that our place at the table be treated with respect, Werner upsets the table and calls for intolerance of others. As someone with a similar worldview I am disappointed that Mike Werner decided to go “All-In” as a stereotypical “Angry Humanist.”
9/4/14
July 10, 2013
I intend to read and re-read this book as I try to understand how the UUA needs to seek an identity to reverse the decline in membership. I do not know if Mr. Werner is absolutely correct in his presentation, but he certainly causes one to think about where the UUA is heading and where it should be heading.
March 6, 2021
Read this if you're interested in the growth of the secular movement in America
This is a clear and concise review of the history of the UUA and its dance with humanism. Werner makes it clear that the only way for the UU to survive is to return fully to its roots of promoting humanism, reason and science, as well as continuing its focus on social justice and human rights. All UU churches would do well to affiliate with The UU Humanist Association and the American Humanist Association.
This is a clear and concise review of the history of the UUA and its dance with humanism. Werner makes it clear that the only way for the UU to survive is to return fully to its roots of promoting humanism, reason and science, as well as continuing its focus on social justice and human rights. All UU churches would do well to affiliate with The UU Humanist Association and the American Humanist Association.
January 2, 2021
A comprehensive discussion of the influence of Christianity on the Unitarian Church since merging with the Universalist Church. The theology of UU is becoming more “Christian-like” which is not necessarily in approval of all UU members...myself included!
February 19, 2014
I liked this book, even though I thought it was a bit alarmist bordering melodramatic at times, and I hope many conversations will come out of it. The question of how UUs value reason vs faith is an important one that doesn't seem to have any answer.
The thing I took away from this book was that I need to think more about how I use religious language. I thought that by obscuring what I mean with words like "Faith" and "God" I was helping to unify our community. Werner has convinced me that it's probably harmful and that people should say what they mean.
He also champions the new atheists and people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Penn Jillette and sets them up as examples - seemingly oblivious to the fact that these men have said some extremely sexist things, and how the atheist community is practically tearing itself apart right now over a fight between vile misogynists and feminists/reasonable people.
I also took offense to his characterization of people who change careers mid-life to become UU Ministers:
"This is not a segment of our ministry that has a prophetic, rational voice nor can it elicit the best in critical reasoning. Some in this category are the emotionally crippled who have failed in other aspects of life and now weigh down a congregation rather than empower them."
My mister and some of the best UU ministers I have met came to the ministry later in life. This is a broad, hurtful and harmful generalization.
Elsewhere Werner asks:
"We are told that tie doesn't matter what we believe, only how we act. But...what is the basis for our ethics? What grounds our actions?"
I don't think he would be satisfied if I just pointed to the principles because he would just ask where they come from. I would say that I think a lot of UUism is good for the sake of being good; that doing right is its own reward. This, to me is one of the essential UU beliefs. And it is something that one must believe or place faith in. Because there are those who don't think that good works have intrinsic value.
The thing I took away from this book was that I need to think more about how I use religious language. I thought that by obscuring what I mean with words like "Faith" and "God" I was helping to unify our community. Werner has convinced me that it's probably harmful and that people should say what they mean.
He also champions the new atheists and people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Bill Maher and Penn Jillette and sets them up as examples - seemingly oblivious to the fact that these men have said some extremely sexist things, and how the atheist community is practically tearing itself apart right now over a fight between vile misogynists and feminists/reasonable people.
I also took offense to his characterization of people who change careers mid-life to become UU Ministers:
"This is not a segment of our ministry that has a prophetic, rational voice nor can it elicit the best in critical reasoning. Some in this category are the emotionally crippled who have failed in other aspects of life and now weigh down a congregation rather than empower them."
My mister and some of the best UU ministers I have met came to the ministry later in life. This is a broad, hurtful and harmful generalization.
Elsewhere Werner asks:
"We are told that tie doesn't matter what we believe, only how we act. But...what is the basis for our ethics? What grounds our actions?"
I don't think he would be satisfied if I just pointed to the principles because he would just ask where they come from. I would say that I think a lot of UUism is good for the sake of being good; that doing right is its own reward. This, to me is one of the essential UU beliefs. And it is something that one must believe or place faith in. Because there are those who don't think that good works have intrinsic value.
October 17, 2013
The book was a very strong position paper on the current situation not only with Unitarian Universalism & liberal religion, but for the future of religion in general in the United States. Taking religion on a reality-based perspective and treating it as it should be treated in this culture - a brand seeking customers - Werner goes through how the UUs can use their abandoned Humanist base to get ahead of the curve with regard to the upcoming religious demographics of the country. It will take courage, leaving the current Devil they know, & jumping off a cliff. Werner leaves it as an open question as to the success or even survival of the UUA.
June 15, 2014
As a Unitarian Universalist myself, I agree with Werner. The UUA has succumbed to mamby-pamby thinking, or maybe no thinking at all. The UUA needs to stand for something and stop trying to be all things to all people.
September 21, 2014
A must-read for any humanist who participates in Unitarian Universalist communities. How do we successfully maintain a meaningful community based in reason AND compassion even while the UUA tries to gravitate toward a "Church of Oprah"?
September 7, 2014
This is a very readable book reviewing the history of humanism within the history of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Many wise observations --- a perfect book for a searching humanist.
January 4, 2016
Mostly of interest to insiders of Unitarian Universalism. It raises some interesting questions, but does a very poor job of dealing with them. Mostly represents prejudices of the author
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews