It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separation of Church & State

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Topic: Separation of Church & State - IT IS A JOKE!!! What ever happened to Separation of Church & State? Just look at what has happened ever since G. W. Bush was "Elected" to President in 2000! He was placed there - BOTH TIMES - by his Fundamentalist Religious Extremist Base (but the Judeo-Christian kind - not the bad, Evil, Islamic "Terrorist" kind)! Then when ever key positions in the Government opens up he Appoints his Fellow Fundamentalist Religious Cronies into those Positions - John Ashcroft & Condoleezza Rice
are good examples! Never Mind all of the *ABOSOLUTE ZIONISTS* that surround him (Wolfowitz, Pearl, Fieth, Cheney, Rumsfeld - I can go on & on)!

It is just that in the REALITY of our Present World (and even World History) - it just *DOES NOT EXIST*!!!
The Church (and Synagogue) & the State have ALWAYS been Inter-Twined & this usually leads to DISASTER
9 out of 10 times!


I believe that Separation of Church & State is a GREAT IDEA\CONCEPT & that the Foundering Fathers got it right! I don't want Fundamentalists getting into the Government & making Laws that end up taking my Rights away based on their Religious Beliefs - but this is indeed what has been Happening! "Fiscal" Conservatism is a Minority - the "Conservative Republican Revolution" that started when Ronald Regan was Elected President in 1981 is BASED in RELIGION! In America people are supposed to be FREE to Worship in what ever way they seem fit! That is why the Founding Fathers left England – to escape Religious Persecution! Even though I myself am a Christian - *I ABSOLUTLY DISAGREE* when people claim that the U.S.A. is a
Strictly "Christian Nation\Country" - I feel that this is not fair to the Religious Minorities! As long as you are not Breaking Laws & Harming others I feel that people should be free to Practice whatever Religion that they want to – or None at all!


Any Comments – let the Debate Begin!


[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]




posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
And so it shall


Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. It comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptist church when they asked him, while he was president, to make the Baptist church the national church. Jefferson explained that there had to be a wall of separation between the church and state so the state couldn't influence people's freedom to express and practice their religion. There was nothing in it about protecting people from other ideas, or from religion in general.

Never did Jefferson, when he wrote that, intend for it to be taken as a leader of the nation is not allowed to have, practice, or voice their faith. The separation used to mean the state could not say do this, don't do this when it came to faith. Now, the state still doesn't say "do this," but thanks to groups like the ACLU and that Newdow guy, government is now telling us, "don't do that." They are also now deciding monuments are an endorsement of religion. So America is no longer allowed to have a history, because people may find it offensive or imposing. Sigh.

So far as the separation Jefferson spoke of, I am 100% behind it. The US should not be permitted to tell me how to practice my faith. What it has become today, however, I disagree with. God is not a secret to be kept according to my religion, but the government is telling me that aspect of my faith needs to change. Sorry, guys, I worship a higher power than the US government or even the high and mighty UN. I worship...yep, you got it, GOD.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   
The thing I note about this are the words Church and State. It has the odour of a Corporate takeover somewhat.

Church is organization...big business...and I sincerely doubt religion has much to do with it, really. It's like the big players are passing around the plate for each other in a bigger arena and with a captive 'national' congregation.

This co-joining of a type of Organized Religion to government is nothing new though, it's happening just about everywhere and only a few countries on this globe are actually free of it.

but...

Take away all the religions and not long afterwards a man will be daydreaming under the stars, contemplating Quantum physics and wondering how 'It' created such a marvel.

I'm saying more education in philosophy and logic for politicians. Make them see the bigger picture by getting their heads out of the trough.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You have the freedom to choose whatever religion you want. No government has established Chrisitanity as the only religion. You can go be a Buddhist if you want, or even an atheist, heck, atheists are loved better in this country than Christians. Nowhere does it say that someone practicing a religion can't be a politician, nowhere. That would eliminate everyone, since atheism is practically a religion within itself.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Topic: Separation of Church & State - IT IS A JOKE!!! What ever happened to Separation of Church & State?


he he he...welcome to reality, my friend. The world takes quick steps backwards. Get ready for a 2nd dark ages!

Last week there was a topic in Slashdot about religious groups stopping scientific documentaries from being played in IMAX theaters. I posted the obvious: that religion is holding humanity back; I was modded as -1, flamebait.

America is going down, that's one thing that's certain.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:23 PM
link   
That's been obvious for awhile with me..
do they really make you swear over a bible in court? for trials? .. and to God??? so it really matters if an atheist is lying to God right? .. lol

The government really needs to get its story straight... God or no God.. and then when they make up their mind.. its time for the people to make up their mind.. lol.. it should be a lovely little event.. I've got my million bags of popcorn ready in my bunker.. lol hahahahahahahaha



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Quote: "I Worship...yep, you got it, GOD."

Yes JungleJake - but there within is the Problem. Who says that
"YOUR GOD" & "YOUR RELIGION" is the SAME as other peoples "GOD" & "RELIGION" - not only are there many different Religion(s - Plural) but there are many different *SECTS/Churches* to the SAME RELIGION in MANY Cases! Not only that but there are many Different ways that you can Interpret Symbols & Scriptures & Rituals! So what are you going to do if you were to say become a Government Official with Power one of these days - FORCE everyone to "CONVERT" to only your Specific Religion\Sect with only your Specific Interpretation & Idea of "GOD"?


Quote: "No Government has established Christianity as the only Religion."

But this is Exactly what I am talking about! They are currently TRYING TO! Just look at what is happening in America Today! Just look at this Schiavo Non-Sense - How the Heck is the Congress & the President getting Involved (Hint: they are all "Religious Conservative Republicans"). Just look at what is going on with President Bush Inserting all of his fellow "Religious Crusaders" into KEY Government Positions like *"Secretary of STATE" & "Attorney General"*. I maintain that Religion has ALREADY Infiltrated the Government & is trying to exert its Will!

They are indeed trying to make Christianity the "Official State Religion of America" & not just any old Form of Christianity - we are talking about a Fundamentalist *ULTRA ORTHODOX* Form of Christianity here! Like I said I consider myself a Christian & a Good Person - but I don't want anyone telling me just HOW EXACTLY to be a "Proper Christian"! I don't want other people telling me how to *LIVE MY LIFE*!!!!!!!!


It sure sounds like the *Inquisition* of the *American Taliban*
(All over again) to me! Let the Witch Hunts Begin!



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Don't turn this into another Schiavo thread. That can be looked at without any means of religion. I know many non-religious people that feel she must not be starved to death. You should be more afraid that someone in the government can decide if you can live or die. Like I said, no matter how many "Christians" are in the government, it does not force you in any way to be a Christian. And those that are in power can use their moral beliefs to make decisions. If any of them were true Christians, then only good could come from it, since Jesus was a caring, loving and sharing man. He made sure that everyone had fish to eat and wine to drink. You should be more afraid that these people in power are pretending to be Christians to get your vote.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Quote: "You should be more afraid that these people in power are *Pretending* to be Christians to get your Vote."

Yes I AGREE! I believe that G.W. Bush pulls that off very well - now for the Next Round of WAR (not too Peaceful) - Hey IRAN - Batters Up! We have got to Protect Israel after all! I wonder how many unproven reasons they will come up with for the Next War!



[edit on 23-3-2005 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
This subject came up during the US elections on this board - This is a repost of my comments then.

The fact that you do not see the actual statement "separation of church and state" is irrelevant and in no way negates the intent of the founding fathers. Many commonly used terms such as "right to privacy" or "right to a fair trial" are also not specifically noted in the constitution, yet we all expect those rights.



(While true that) the phrase "separation of church and state" does not actually appear anywhere in the Constitution, there is a problem, however, in that some people draw incorrect conclusions from this fact. The absence of this phrase does not mean that it is an invalid concept or that it cannot be used as a legal or judicial principle.

There are any number of important legal concepts which do not appear in the Constitution with the exact phrasing people tend to use. For example, nowhere in the Constitution will you find words like "right to privacy" or even "right to a fair trial." Does this mean that no American citizen has a right to privacy or a fair trial? Does this mean that no judge should ever invoke these rights when reaching a decision?

Similarly, courts have found that the principle of a "religious liberty" exists behind in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there: ?Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...? The point of such an amendment is twofold. First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach. Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines. This is what happens when the government "establishes" a church - and because doing so created so many problems in Europe, the authors of the Constitution wanted to try and prevent the same from happening here.


The intent of the founding fathers is clear - worship who or what you want, but keeping a wall between the church and the state is necessary to ensure a free society.

Also with regard to Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists - it was not the only time he used this wording. In a letter to Virginia Baptists in 1808 he wrote:



"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."


Another example of Jefferson's belief in "separation of church and state"



Jefferson worked to eliminate the compulsory funding of established churches in his native Virginia. The final 1786 Act for Establishing Religious Freedom read in part that: ...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions of belief...


Another interesting point is that Jefferson's personal writings are used as the best source material available to use when interpreting the intent of the founding fathers.



In the 1879 decision Reynolds v. U.S., for example, the court observed that Jefferson's writings "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment."


Because our country is not merely a home to Christians - but home to Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Seikh, and Pagan - it is more important now than ever to draw upon the words of Jefferson and continue to keep this wall intact.

With that said, I do not agree that the US has all of sudden become a raving theocracy. These constitutional protections have served us well. Look no further than SCOTUS overturning Texas sodomy law and the judgements against the 10 commandments judge. Separation of church and state is alive and well, and protected in this country - regardless of who is office.

B.


Source: Austin Cline



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Separation of Church & State: Fact or Fiction

Bleys, you make some excellent points, and I also remember that discussion prior to the elections. I found the article you presented informative. I found one that was informative on this matter, as well. I seem to sense that I posted this link (below) when the subject came up, but for the sake of simplicity, will post it again.
The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State





seekerof



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Originally posted by junglejake

Never did Jefferson, when he wrote that...

I am assuming "that" is either the Constitution or the 1st amendment. Thomas Jefferson was indeed a contributor to the Constitution, but he did not write it. Nor did he write the 1st amendment, or the establishment clause, James Madison, "the Father of the Constitution", was the primary author of the Constitution, as well as the establishment clause.

The establishment clause, as originally written by James Madison, said this:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).


The following quote is a statement made by Madison regarding the practice of chaplains, paid for with tax monies, leading Congress in prayer before their sessions:

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

It doesn't matter what form of religious expression is being made. The government has no authority or right to use our tax-money, to endorse or support the personal religious beliefs of any group or individual.


Originally posted by junglejake Now, the state still doesn't say "do this," but thanks to groups like the ACLU and that Newdow guy, government is now telling us, "don't do that." They are also now deciding monuments are an endorsement of religion. So America is no longer allowed to have a history, because people may find it offensive or imposing. Sigh.


Would you support a monument to Buddha's "8-fold path" or the Wiccan Rede being placed on public, tax-payer funded property (meaning it was paid for by your money)?
And yes, monuments that state,
1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me",
2)"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."
3)"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
4)"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

are, in fact, an endorsement of religion. To say they are not, is to live in a self-imposed state of denial.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Quote: "I Worship...yep, you got it, GOD."

Yes JungleJake - but there within is the Problem. Who says that
"YOUR GOD" & "YOUR RELIGION" is the SAME as other peoples "GOD" & "RELIGION" - not only are there many different Religion(s - Plural) but there are many different *SECTS/Churches* to the SAME RELIGION in MANY Cases! Not only that but there are many Different ways that you can Interpret Symbols & Scriptures & Rituals! So what are you going to do if you were to say become a Government Official with Power one of these days - FORCE everyone to "CONVERT" to only your Specific Religion\Sect with only your Specific Interpretation & Idea of "GOD"?



Nope. On top of that, in the event that I end up trying to go into politics for some really bizzare reason, and get power somehow, I would make it a point to NOT allow people to take down Native American monuments on public land because they have a religious connotation. Sorry, folks, agree or disagree with what they say, they're monuments describing the herritage of our country. It's not that I'm against taking crosses down from any public arena because of seporation or church and state, I'm against taking any monument down because some people may find it offensive.

Hey, guess what. I find slavery offensive. I find it offensive that my ancestors were bought and sold like pieces of meat at the market. However, that, in now way, means I think we need to deny slavery ever happened here. If anything, I think we need to embrase it so something of the same ilk doesn't come to pass in the future. History repeats its self?

Today, while there are efforts to cover up the fact that America did, at one point in time, endorse and encourage slavery, the biggest effort today that I see is trying to cover up America's foundation. The United States if America, the country, not the tract of land. If you're going to say the Native Americans had it first and we should focus on their religion as our foundation, I have two responses:

First, the land currently known as Israel needs to go back to the Cannanites. Israel stole the land from them 5,000 years ago, and they should have it back.

Second, Native American religion played no part in the foundation of these United States. Christianity did. To pretend that this isn't the case because some crazy athiest wants to protect his daughter from her God, whom she worships, is just...Well, to use a term from the 1930s, appeasement.

Ok, kind of a side track there. Short answer to your question, no, I wouldn't force people to believe what I believe. I would not, however, tell anyone they cannot put something in their church bullliten, and I wouldn't tell anyone their mosque's bells can't ring at prayer time. Were I the government, I would just step back, and this would NOT include laws saying, "believe what you like, just don't let me know about it." Many of the same people who say, "keep it in the church, don't force(really love that term!
)your beliefs on me in public," also say the military is horrible for it's don't ask don't tell policy with gays. Open your hypocritical eyes.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Bleys, you make some excellent points, and I also remember that discussion prior to the elections. I found the article you presented informative. I found one that was informative on this matter, as well. I seem to sense that I posted this link (below) when the subject came up, but for the sake of simplicity, will post it again.
The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State


I found the article very interesting Seekerof - thanks for giving me the opportunity to read it. All good points, maybe a little extreme in some areas, but definitely an important alternative view. One thing that troubled me about it:


...Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible.


I do not agree with this sentiment at all. It is arrogance and ignorance on the part of the author to assume that virtue and good moral conduct are the sole property of those who subscribe to the judeo/christian bible. Good moral character and virtue are values taught in a number of religions, cultures and philosophies. Additionally, such statements tend to fuel the fire surrounding the separation debate and create an atmosphere in which trivial and petty legal actions become common - such as in the case of the public baptism in a National Forest or the singing of Christmas songs in school. I know it irritated me. It is one thing to embrace and recognize the impact christian beliefs had in the founding of this country, but another to raise them to a level of superiority over all other belief systems.

Like I said, for the most part I am happy with the current state of affairs on this issue - thank you 14th amendment. The Courts seem to distinguish between the absurd and the truly offensive, but it is something I watch closely for trends, especially among the appellate court justices.

Bleys.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
There is no separation of church (religion) and state in the USA. Our laws are based on the Ten Commandments, which are in the Old Testament. We live by Jewish laws. Most Christian religions have one main difference than Judaism, which is Jesus Christ was the Savior. The Jewish Savior is seemingly more wrathful. Men are determined to make the Bible come true, as they re-enact what is contained therein. The simple truth is right in front of those whom want to acknowledge it.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
They are? i thought they were based on Common Sense...

Greeks didn't have the 10 Commandments but they knew murder, theft, so forth was wrong.

Japanese Empires also didn't have the 10 Commandments but knew murder, theft, so forth were wrong.

Same with China, Egypt, Indians in NA, all had no 10 Commandments but knew muder, theft, rape, were wrong. It is Christian Ego to think that the laws are based on th 10C's when they aren't, they are based on common sense. Also weren't Washington and Franklin Masons? Not Christians?



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
...

Greeks didn't have the 10 Commandments but they knew murder, theft, so forth was wrong.

Japanese Empires also didn't have the 10 Commandments but knew murder, theft, so forth were wrong.

Same with China, Egypt, Indians in NA, all had no 10 Commandments but knew muder, theft, rape, were wrong. It is Christian Ego to think that the laws are based on th 10C's when they aren't, they are based on common sense. Also weren't Washington and Franklin Masons? Not Christians?



However all the above cultures you mentioned above had slavery. And George and Ben had slaves.

So much for right and wrong. Common sense?

No, I think the division between Church and State is a Myth fostered by the Church and State.

Want a job in Government? Let it be known that you're a heathen and watch as the Christians and Jews climb the bureacratic ladder while you remain a bottom feeder GS 4. Nah, division between Church and State. GMAFB.

Welcome to the monkey house, it's a brave new world!

[edit on 15-9-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
I find that I agree that government should adopt its constitutions or other charters of civil authority and administrative procedure to maintain their freedom to PREVENT:

1. Usurpation of unwarranted power by either the executive or legislative branches.
2. Machinations of ignorant and superstitious agitators.
3. Retardation of scientific progress.
4. Stalemate of the dominance of mediocrity.
5. Domination by vicious minorities.
6. Control by ambitious and clever would-be dictators.
7. Disastrous disruption of panics.
8. Exploitation by the unscrupulous.
9. Taxation enslavement of the citizenry by the state.
10. Failure of social and economic fairness.
11. Union of church and state.
12. Loss of personal liberty.

In item 11 above, the prevention of the union of the church and state, we have one of the most difficult of all the twelve social problems of government listed.

In my view the church has weakened itself by attempting to confiscate some of the powers of the state. Even weddings, though the subject may be somewhat trivial here, are a function of the State as they are a regulation of social mores and not the conferring of divine approval of partners. The fact that marriages end is itself a sign that there is no divine approval involved.

Many western churches, especially in the United States among the evangelicals, think political reform is effective through the power of the social church. In fact, no political reform can be made when there are contentious social issues exploited by unscrupulous manipulators who seek political power through the pulpit to influence the highest offices in the land. What the church believes about these issues can be as wrong as the state’s attempt to referee their practices. It is political majorities that must sort them out, not the doubtful theology of an un-reformed church.

The function of the church is to produce religionists who must function in society, in industry, and in politics as individuals, not as groups, parties, or institutions. A religious group which presumes to function as such, apart from religious activities, immediately becomes a political party, an economic organization, or a social institution. Religious collectivism must confine its efforts to the furtherance of religious causes.

The institutionalized church may have appeared to serve society in the past by glorifying the established political and economic orders, but it must speedily cease such action if it is to survive.
Yes, if it is to survive. Not only in America, but in many places around the world, spiritual regeneration is often taking place outside of the church as the church increasingly fails to attend to the spiritual needs of its religionists while they favor certain moral dogmas of politicians who pander to their views.

In the United States, there continues a blurring of the line between the state and the church. Erroneous teachings by the church propagate the idea they may trump necessary state actions by jamming the political machinery with well meaning congregations who vote en bloc for legislation that is detrimental to the nation and the world in the belief they know God’s will in a particular matter. This is highly dangerous ground and it will eventually destroy any moral authority the church has remaining to be the shepherd of the world’s spiritually needy.

Ron




top topics



 
0

log in

join