Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 8:04 PM
422 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,894 Year: 6,500/21,208 Month: 2,261/2,634 Week: 449/572 Day: 66/99 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Author Topic:   Is America a Christian Nation?
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 206 (664098)
05-28-2012 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:49 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
To me it looks like those who say church and state should be kept separate, as evidenced by the examples I gave, are in reality doing exactly what Jefferson predicted, actually institutionalizing their own beliefs in law, and infringing on the religious freedoms of those they disagree with. If it is wrong to institutionalize one side's beliefs and force them on others, it should be for the other side also.

quote:
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;


http://creationwiki.org/...nia_statute_for_religious_freedom

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:49 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:37 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:39 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(4)
Message 182 of 206 (664102)
05-29-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:49 PM


Church And State
I agree about not institutionalizing Christianity. But I guess the question is, what's the difference between what you mentioned, and having taught as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, both of which are frankly opinions, and using tax dollars to do so? What is the difference between teaching children about homosexual role models as the gay rights movement is having done in states across the U.S.? What is the difference between forcing millions of Pro-Life Americans to fund Planned Parenthood through the new healthcare law? What is the difference between having a Stimulus give millions of dollars in earmarks to Pro-Evolution organizations and scientists, and not to Creationist ones?

http://savecalifornia.com/...-models-for-schoolchildren.html

How are these opinions forced on Americans who don't support them a different case?

Religious freedom doesn't entail freedom to play dog-in-the-manger. A flat-Earth sect shouldn't stop state schools from buying globes, or stop the Navy from buying and using navigation systems based on spherical geometry. Nor does the existence of Jehovah's Witnesses prevent them from spending money on blood transfusions, nor the existence of Scientologists prevent them from offering psychiatric treatment to soldiers with PTSD. The existence of white supremacist churches doesn't stop people from teaching about black role models nor render Martin Luther King Day unconstitutional. Pacifist religious groups such as the Quakers do not entail that we should abolish the Army. If there are still any Christians left who pay any attention to the strictures in the Bible against usury, that wouldn't stop the government from borrowing or lending money at interest. And if a cult arose that claimed that two twos were five, schools would not have to abandon teaching the multiplication table.

The government is free to act for secular purposes, such as making sure that the Navy can get their ships from point A to point B, without reference to this or that religious belief. If they couldn't, then that would be an entanglement of church with state; moreover, it would be stupid.

This does not leave religious people entirely without recourse --- for example, if Quakers could persuade enough people to share their views, we could vote to abolish the Army. But the First Amendment does not oblige us to abolish it right now out of deference to their religion.

(And since there were Quakers back when the USA was founded, and we had an army even back then, it is plain that the Founders agreed with my interpretation of the First Amendment in this respect at least.)

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:49 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 206 (664103)
05-29-2012 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2012 12:00 AM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
Religious freedom doesn't entail freedom to play dog-in-the-manger. A flat-Earth sect shouldn't stop state schools from buying globes, or stop the Navy from buying and using navigation systems based on spherical geometry. Nor does the existence of Jehovah's Witnesses prevent them from spending money on blood transfusions, nor the existence of Scientologists prevent them from offering psychiatric treatment to soldiers with PTSD. The existence of white supremacist churches doesn't stop people from teaching about black role models nor render Martin Luther King Day unconstitutional. And if a cult arose that claimed that two twos were five, schools would not have to abandon teaching the multiplication table.

None of which appears similar to what I mentioned. Unlike with claims of a flat earth, it's not as easy to prove macroevolution as looking at the horizon, or taking a plane trip around the world. Abortion is very obviously murder in certain cases - unlike blood transfusions - such as those that occur after the 21st week (some 40,000 abortions every year), the same time that children can be born prematurely and live. Nor is the gay rights movement similar to the civil rights movement since they have the right to vote already and already have the same rights as everyone else - what they want is to change the meaning of what rights are.

You are discussing cults and minorities, but in this case, 66% of Americans say Young Earth Creationism is definitely true or probably true, 59% support outlawing abortion in any or most circumstances, and 48% oppose same-sex marriage.

http://www.gallup.com/...creationism-intelligent-design.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:00 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:59 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 184 of 206 (664104)
05-29-2012 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:53 PM


Re: and then there is Roger Williams ...
d.p.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:53 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 185 of 206 (664106)
05-29-2012 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 10:53 PM


Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom
To me it looks like those who say church and state should be kept separate, as evidenced by the examples I gave, are in reality doing exactly what Jefferson predicted, actually institutionalizing their own beliefs in law, and infringing on the religious freedoms of those they disagree with. If it is wrong to institutionalize one side's beliefs and force them on others, it should be for the other side also.

It is --- they're not allowed to use taxpayers' money to teach their religious doctrines either. Of course, they don't want to.

I think you're playing about a bit with words like "belief" and "opinion" here. Jefferson clearly thought that one shouldn't be compelled to pay for a religion one does not believe in. This is different from saying that one should not be compelled to pay for a government program that one does not believe in. In a democracy, such things are going to happen. For example, people who opposed the war with Iraq still had to pay for it. I must have missed the clamor of fundamentalists explaining that this contravened the spirit of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom --- or if they made any mention of it, it must have been drowned out by the din they made rattling their sabres.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 10:53 PM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 12:52 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 206 (664107)
05-29-2012 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2012 12:39 AM


Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom
It is --- they're not allowed to use taxpayers' money to teach their religious doctrines either. Of course, they don't want to.

I think you're playing about a bit with words like "belief" and "opinion" here. Jefferson clearly thought that one shouldn't be compelled to pay for a religion one does not believe in. This is different from saying that one should not be compelled to pay for a government program that one does not believe in. In a democracy, such things are going to happen. For example, people who opposed the war with Iraq still had to pay for it. I must have missed the clamor of fundamentalists explaining that this contravened the spirit of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom --- or if they made any mention of it, it must have been drowned out by the din they made rattling their sabres.

Except that Jefferson specifically said "opinions and modes of thinkings" were being used to "[assume] dominion over the faith of others". This was used to maintain false religions over the world and for all time. He said that it was wrong to force others to contribute money for opinions they don't believe.

quote:
That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;


By that definition, if opinions and modes of thinking imposed on others include Evolution, Homosexuality, and Abortion, they might as well be for all intents and purposes religions. They are opinions and modes of thinking imposed on the faith of others.

As for conservatives and the Virginia Statute, I don't think I've met anyone before who knew about the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that I hadn't already told. I came across it and have been mentioning it myself.

I am a fundamentalist, and I've been opposing the Iraq War since 2004. I say so on my CreationWiki page, and I can prove it per my 2004 posting history at RenewAmerica's forums. I was criticizing both Bush and Obama at the time and my posting history proves it, as well as the fact that I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. I've never voted anything but 3rd party in a presidential general election.

http://creationwiki.org/User:Jzyehoshua
http://www.renewamerica.com/bb/search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:39 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 1:06 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 187 of 206 (664109)
05-29-2012 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 12:14 AM


But the line you're taking is not one that can be taken by the government.

Don't you see that if they started making distinctions, the First Amendment would have gone completely up the spout? They'd have to start saying: "OK, we don't have to pander to this church (on inter-racial marriage) but we do have to pander to this other more favored church (on gay marriage). We don't have to accommodate the to the Quakers, who tell us that war is clearly murder, but we must accommodate the Catholics who say the same thing about abortion. The geoplanarians are a small sect, we can draw up a school curriculum without reference to them; but there are many creationists, so we can't teach anything that they find offensive. Moreover, I personally think that the views of geoplanarians are clearly wrong, whereas I being but a simple Supreme Court Justice find it harder to refute creationists. Now, how about the geocentrists? How stupid do I think they are, and how many of them are there?"

Now, you as a private individual can dismiss certain religious beliefs because the minority that holds them is a small one, or because you find those beliefs silly and easy to refute. That's your perfect right.

But we can't put the government in the business of deciding that, and establishing that for First Amendment purposes some churches are important churches such that taxpayers' money should never be spent in any way that might grieve or upset their adherents, whereas other churches are just silly little cults that no-one needs to bother about.

Now of course the elected officials can pander to this or that church to some extent, and may indeed do so by counting heads. Hence, some churches have more political clout than others. But we can't have some churches having a different constitutional position based on how large they are or whether we think they're silly.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 12:14 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:30 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 188 of 206 (664110)
05-29-2012 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 12:52 AM


Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom
By that definition, if opinions and modes of thinking imposed on others include Evolution, Homosexuality, and Abortion, they might as well be for all intents and purposes religions. They are opinions and modes of thinking imposed on the faith of others.

That hardly seems to mean anything. How does someone impose a homosexual opinion on your faith?

I am a fundamentalist, and I've been opposing the Iraq War since 2004. I say so on my CreationWiki page, and I can prove it per my 2004 posting history at RenewAmerica's forums. I was criticizing both Bush and Obama at the time and my posting history proves it, as well as the fact that I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. I've never voted anything but 3rd party in a presidential general election.

So ... do you deserve a tax rebate?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 12:52 AM Jzyehoshua has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:35 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 206 (664111)
05-29-2012 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2012 12:59 AM


No need to distinguish organizations
I don't think there's a need to recognize any church or organization in general by government. We need to avoid letting any organization, be it religious, scientific, or political, have major influence in government decision-making.

The solution I would like is for all to be able to voice their religious, political, and scientific opinions in the sphere of politics and government regardless so long as these don't call for silencing inalienable liberties like right to life, right to vote, or right to free speech of other demographics.

We should simply put issues like abortion or homosexuality or evolution to a vote and let the people decide. There's no need to distinguish this group or that group. Just let it be an up-or-down majority vote. Let all people voice their opinions on the issues and trust the most persuasive, reasonable arguments will be adopted by the majority, simple as that.

While an organization can usurp government as a dictatorship, because it involves power in the hands of a few, it is far more difficult to do so with a direct democracy where organizations are not given this power but all may vote on an issue. What I'd like to see is the top political issues put on the ballot and have people vote on how to decide them each election. Same with a few of the top bills. The system would be tough to set up but could definitely be done if people can vote constantly on something as trivial as American Idol.

We shouldn't be upholding organizations through government at all. But we are of necessity going to have to adopt the VIEWS of organizations. Either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice will be the law, e.g. Or at least somewhere on the scale which will probably be supported by one side and not the other. In other words, we can have the issues of Evolution or Abortion or Marriage voted on by the people without instituting a specific organization in law, because organizations have nothing to do with this, but rather the will of the people themselves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 12:59 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 9:05 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-29-2012 11:44 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 201 by NoNukes, posted 05-30-2012 9:51 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Jzyehoshua
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 206 (664112)
05-29-2012 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2012 1:06 AM


Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom
That hardly seems to mean anything. How does someone impose a homosexual opinion on your faith?

I already gave the example of having homosexual role models taught to grade schoolers. Using one's own public tax dollars to teach that homosexuality is right to one's children would seem to fit that description. Another example would be the homosexual hate crimes laws that are allowing pastors to be sued for not performing gay weddings, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors for not performing in vitro fertilization on lesbian couples. Those are all cases of infringing on the religious freedoms of others.

So ... do you deserve a tax rebate?

I think our tax code is way too complicated and needs to be simplified. We should just figure out what the 10-15 most effective Income Tax questions are for determining cumulative national wealth, adopt those, and toss the rest. I'm not sure we even need to ask marriage status for tax purposes. Concerning taxes on business, I'd like to see tax rebates for companies that hire more U.S. workers in relation to company earnings so companies are incentivized to hire U.S. workers maximally rather than replacing them with overseas workers, illegal immigrants, or automation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 1:06 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2012 9:11 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 197 by NoNukes, posted 05-29-2012 2:15 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded
 Message 198 by jar, posted 05-29-2012 2:25 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18241
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 191 of 206 (664123)
05-29-2012 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by Jzyehoshua
05-28-2012 9:49 PM


what pledge
Hi Jzyehoshua

Just a small quibble or two:

... they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, ...

(1) The mention of god was added to the original pledge, as was mention of America:

quote:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Shortly thereafter, the pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart, and after reciting "to the Flag," the arm was extended toward the Flag, palm-down.


Isn't that like a fascist salute?

quote:
The Pledge of Allegiance, A Short History

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]


Curiously I see nothing wrong with the original wording, except the omission of equality ... if you need a pledge ...

(2) The founding fathers did not need a pledge. Pledges are needed by people that don't like independent thinking, imho.

abe ...

I knew this had been discussed before and a little searching found:

[qs]Message 19 of the constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion thread:

This does not alter the fact that they supported a government of the people by the people for the people

Read "The Christian Nation Myth" by Farrel Till
http://www.infidels.org/...ary/modern/farrell_till/myth.html

Note in particular that the constitutional convention voted on whether to include god in the constitution and that it was defeated.

Read how Jefferson and Washington and many other founders -- specifically the ones that were the movers and shakers of creating this country -- were not christian or were christian and had no problem with a separation between government by people and religions of all stripes.[/quote]

Another good read.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : abe info


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-28-2012 9:49 PM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Coragyps, posted 05-29-2012 9:31 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 192 of 206 (664131)
05-29-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 1:30 AM


Re: No need to distinguish organizations
Well, I kinda liked the constitutional republic we have. But my best wishes on your endeavor to abolish it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:30 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15469
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.9


(5)
Message 193 of 206 (664132)
05-29-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Jzyehoshua
05-29-2012 1:35 AM


Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is A Statute For Religious Freedom
I already gave the example of having homosexual role models taught to grade schoolers. Using one's own public tax dollars to teach that homosexuality is right to one's children would seem to fit that description. Another example would be the homosexual hate crimes laws that are allowing pastors to be sued for not performing gay weddings, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors for not performing in vitro fertilization on lesbian couples. Those are all cases of infringing on the religious freedoms of others.

And where did they actually occur? Could I see some specific instances? Only I know what hate crime legislation actually is, so I am doubtful of your claims.

I think our tax code is way too complicated and needs to be simplified. We should just figure out what the 10-15 most effective Income Tax questions are for determining cumulative national wealth, adopt those, and toss the rest. I'm not sure we even need to ask marriage status for tax purposes. Concerning taxes on business, I'd like to see tax rebates for companies that hire more U.S. workers in relation to company earnings so companies are incentivized to hire U.S. workers maximally rather than replacing them with overseas workers, illegal immigrants, or automation.

You missed my point. I mean: if you were opposed to the war, does that mean that you shouldn't have to pay for it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-29-2012 1:35 AM Jzyehoshua has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5266
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 6.1


(3)
Message 194 of 206 (664133)
05-29-2012 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by RAZD
05-29-2012 7:54 AM


Re: what pledge
Isn't that like a fascist salute?

Precisely like one - a retired couple I knew when I was a kid told me about how the hand signals changed when they were in school in the 30's.

Also, Jz, I, along with my age cohort in the US, had to relearn the pledge with "under God" added in 2nd grade. The trauma of having to do so led us to become the first generation of godless atheistic commie hippies when we got up to our teens......


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 7:54 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by jar, posted 05-29-2012 11:12 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28427
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 195 of 206 (664145)
05-29-2012 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Coragyps
05-29-2012 9:31 AM


Re: what pledge
And because we had to relearn the pledge already, we should be exempt for the next round. However, "Play Ball" should never be removed from the National Anthem.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Coragyps, posted 05-29-2012 9:31 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
9101112
13
14Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017