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.

 

Freedom of Religion or Freedom from Religion?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I believe that In the United States that Freedom of Religion is getting out of hand. I mean, it is getting to the point that it is more like freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. Americans now want 'under God' cut out of the pledge of allegiance, and they want stricter rules on religion in public buildings. (ex: schools)

Here is a neat article summarizing this:
www.thisistrue.com...

What do other people think?

Thanks,
5aret




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Freedom of religion getting out of hand? What's 'out of hand' about it?

Do you agree that if someone isn't religious, they should be free to NOT practice religion? IOW, do you agree that they should have freedom from religion? Or do you think we should all have to choose a religion to practice?

BTW, "under God" was ADDED to the pledge in 1957 and was not in the original pledge.

Personally, I don't understand the need to have God sayings written all about when people have a perfectly good place to worship (a church) plus they can pray and worship all they want at home, in the park, on the street, in the laundrymat, wherever. I don't understand why religious statues, markers and plaques must appear in every single building that they might enter. I don't 'get' what religion has to do with public school. To me, it's the same as hanging my laundry at school.

School is about secular education. There are lots of places kids can get religious education. And each kid can get an education of their own religion instead of being inundated with God speak. However, I have no problem displaying Christian sayings, pictures and statues as long as other religions are free to be represented.

But in my experience, the Christian religion is all for Freedom of Religion until it means someone else practicing theirs. They want "In God We Trust" written on a plaque in the classroom, but would have a fit if the teacher also hung this in front of the classroom...




posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I just could not have put it better myself. What a great answer Benevolent Heretic.

I respect a person's individual right to worship whatever they like, but please respect mine not to.

Thank you.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Freedom of religion getting out of hand? What's 'out of hand' about it?


How about acting like there is no God in public places. I mean, the door swings both ways. I do respect other people's views, no matter what it is. What I am saying is that people are now barred from having anythin religous to do in public areas. Now isnt that benifitting the atheist and not the religous? I think so.


Do you agree that if someone isn't religious, they should be free to NOT practice religion? IOW, do you agree that they should have freedom from religion? Or do you think we should all have to choose a religion to practice? BTW, "under God" was ADDED to the pledge in 1957 and was not in the original pledge.


I totally agree with you. But, there is a fine line between freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If I am a Christian, I dont expect to pretend God doesnt exist when I am in a public forum, but, the atheist shouldnt have to pretend that there is a God either.


BTW, "under God" was ADDED to the pledge in 1957 and was not in the original pledge.


The 'under God' phrase is not stating that God exists, its just showing the religousness and the freedom of religion in out society. If you want proof, here it is:

Catholic League president William Donohue comments:

“It cannot seriously be maintained that the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance constitute the establishment of a religion. Surely there is a dramatic difference between the collective acknowledgment of our religious heritage and the formal establishment of a religion. While it is not surprising that Mr. Newdow cannot understand the difference - he is a devout atheist - the American people have every right to expect that the high court can make such a distinction."


atheism.about.com...

If you ask me, they should have a law stating that if you want to say 'under Allah' or 'under Satan' or 'under Buddah', etc... you can, and if you want to blot it out, you can to. I dont think you should completly remove it though.



School is about secular education. There are lots of places kids can get religious education. And each kid can get an education of their own religion instead of being inundated with God speak. However, I have no problem displaying Christian sayings, pictures and statues as long as other religions are free to be represented.


I totally agree that all religions should be represented if Christianity is. Every religion should be displayed equaly, so it does not imply one religion is better than the other.



5aret



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

posted by 5aret: “I believe that Freedom of Religion is getting out of hand. I mean, it is getting to the point that it is more like freedom from religion, not freedom of religion. [Edited by Don W]


The fear of religion did not happen in a vacuum, 5aret, nor did it happen overnight. Emperor Constantine - who I have labeled as one of the 3 founders of Christianity - called the first church council of Nicea to select from several hundred books, the books to be included in one giant bound volume, later to be called the Holy Bible. 325 AD. The other two? Paul and Augustine reciting Aristotle. No, I don't include Jeuss as a founder of Chritianity. Hey, 99.44% of Christians don't either.

When the bishops of the several churches had made their choices, Constantine ordered all the non included books to be burned. He made it a crime to possess one of the non selected books. Uniformity and orthodoxy was his mantra. He had 50 copies of the selected books made and chained one in each of the 50 churches he built or remodeled in his new capital city, Constantinople. (None of the 50 have survived nor has the list of what books were included.)

The Hundred Years War. 1337-1453. Primarily between France and England. But battles were fought over most of Western Europe. This war was indelicately intertwined with the Protestant Reformation what began in Germany early in the 14th century.

This was followed by the 30 Years War, 1618-1648. Primarily a war between kings who where either Protestant or Catholic. The Habsburg of Austria. Tomas de Torquemada, the Spanish Inquisitor General, after 1492. Baron George Geoffrey, of the English Star Chamber trials, also known as the Hanging Judge.

But most of all, for Englishmen, was King Henry VIII. Henry had written a small book lambasting Martin Luther, and the pope honored Henry by giving him a gold medallion to wear and a title, Defender of the Faith. We know that Henry and the Catholic Church fell out over a divorce. Or the denial of one. Now, that disputation had almost nothing to do with religion. It was all politics. Phillip, the Most Catholic King of Spain, did not want his niece - the wife of Henry - divorced as he, Phillip, saw it to Spain’s advantage to have a claim on the English throne.

There were 3 national powers vying for world power in the 16th century. Spain, France and England. Phillip II, with the full blessing of the pope, prepared the Catholic Armada - we call it the Spanish Armada - and as you may know, in 1588, it was defeated decisively by the English. While the pope did bless the Armada, you might say God did not?

With all this war and religion in the background, it was decided not to have a state church or state approved religion in a new America. Holland was our model in this regard. That is why our Federal constitution did not include much about religion. As opposed to many of the even older state constitutions which did.

Regardless of what was popular in 1787, we live in 2006, and constitutional law has evolved over those 200 + years. It was where I liked it about 20 years ago. It is going away from there now, but that is democracy. You have the same rights I have. If you want more religion in government, say so. I don’t but that’s me. I don’t know anywhere that state imposed and enforced religiosity has been well received. It certainly does not produce “better” countries. To me, history shows religion and politics are like oil and water. They do not mix well.


[edit on 4/18/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Great post Benevolent Heretic. I completely agree. I am one who is not Christian but I do respect Christianity, as I do all religions. I'm just tired of being inundated with Christian symbols, references and thinking. You have to admit that it's pretty much a monopoly, I don't see other religions being represented, I mean have you ever seen a Star of David or a pentacle on any government building?
I live in the south in a small town and as I've said before, Pagans are too scared to wear pentacles in public. We are afraid (bejcause we've been told by the locals) that our lives may be in danger, as well as our property, etc. if the townsfolk found out we were Pagan because they would think we were evil. It doesn't matter how much we try to explain that we don't believe in Satan, etc. they refuse to listen. And the Bible is taught in the local public school.
This is not freedom of religion, and unfortunately, it happens all too often, in too many places.
If you were Christian, how would you feel if everywhere you turned around, you only pretty much only pentacles and were forced to observe Pagan sabbats (holidays)? And most folks assumed you were Pagan?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
If you were Christian, how would you feel if everywhere you turned around, you only pretty much only pentacles and were forced to observe Pagan sabbats (holidays)? And most folks assumed you were Pagan?


Wow, thats sad. About how much of the population is pagan in your town? That seems like an injustice to me. Do you have any way of resolving that issue?

5aret



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5aret
How about acting like there is no God in public places.


Well, many act like there IS a God in public places and that's ok with me.




What I am saying is that people are now barred from having anythin religous to do in public areas. Now isnt that benifitting the atheist and not the religous? I think so.


No, it's not showing preference or benefiting anyone. Religion simply isn't addressed. It's not saying there is no God, it's just saying religion isn't dealt with here.



If I am a Christian, I dont expect to pretend God doesnt exist when I am in a public forum...


You don't have to pretend anything. You can think whatever you like, regardless of what happens to be haning on the wall. And that goes both ways, too.



The 'under God' phrase is not stating that God exists,


What? Are you saying it would be ok if we said "under Gods and Goddesses"? Of course it implies God exists! And it brings religion into the pledge of allegiance to our country.



If you ask me, they should have a law stating that if you want to say 'under Allah' or 'under Satan' or 'under Buddah', etc... you can, and if you want to blot it out, you can to. I dont think you should completly remove it though.


Why have "Under anything" in there then? Why not return it to the originally intended pledge? Then if people want to think "Under God" or "Under Barney" while they're saying it, they can?

This is not a big sticking point with me, actually because I don't recite the pledge and I don't have children who are forced to do so. But I am totally against having Under God in the pledge. It makes no sense to me to add a religious phrase to a pledge to one's country.



About how much of the population is pagan in your town?


It doesn't matter what the percentage is. That's the whole mindset that Christians (in my experience) use to wield their power. If the majority are Christians, then we have to go with what they want. And in fact, the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion, not just to the majority, but to each and every individual.



That seems like an injustice to me. Do you have any way of resolving that issue?


My guess is that she cannot resolve the issue because of the attitude that the Christians (the majority) have about Paganism.

I don't care if people say Under God in the pledge or not, I can skip over it. But when people are not allowed to practice their religion because of another religion being offended and using their power in government and society to push people around, that's when I get really upset...



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, many act like there IS a God in public places and that's ok with me.


Ok, so people can actually practice their freedom of religion and be on their marry way.... wow that was easy...



No, it's not showing preference or benefiting anyone. Religion simply isn't addressed. It's not saying there is no God, it's just saying religion isn't dealt with here.


So the freedom of religion goes out the window here, huh? So now we just ignore religion and again, pretend that religion does not exist. Doesnt sound like freedom to me.



You don't have to pretend anything. You can think whatever you like, regardless of what happens to be haning on the wall. And that goes both ways, too.


I agree, I meant that we ignore religion and act like there is no God, even though we do think the opposite. Its hard to explain.



What? Are you saying it would be ok if we said "under Gods and Goddesses"? Of course it implies God exists! And it brings religion into the pledge of allegiance to our country.


Did you even read what an attorney said about that?

Catholic League president William Donohue comments:

“It cannot seriously be maintained that the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance constitute the establishment of a religion. Surely there is a dramatic difference between the collective acknowledgment of our religious heritage and the formal establishment of a religion. While it is not surprising that Mr. Newdow cannot understand the difference - he is a devout atheist - the American people have every right to expect that the high court can make such a distinction."


I didnt make it up. Only if this person is wrong, an your right...


Why have "Under anything" in there then? Why not return it to the originally intended pledge? Then if people want to think "Under God" or "Under Barney" while they're saying it, they can?
This is not a big sticking point with me, actually because I don't recite the pledge and I don't have children who are forced to do so. But I am totally against having Under God in the pledge. It makes no sense to me to add a religious phrase to a pledge to one's country.


Just as much as it makes no sense to me that we have religious freedom and we are supposed to ignore it when we are in a public forum. As long as we arent forcing someone into our beliefs, we should be able to pray, etc.. and do whatever we want to practice that freedom. As for the 'Under God' I already explained that it wasnt to push people from the pledge, but to show the religious diveristy within our society.



It doesn't matter what the percentage is. That's the whole mindset that Christians (in my experience) use to wield their power. If the majority are Christians, then we have to go with what they want. And in fact, the Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion, not just to the majority, but to each and every individual.


I know that, I am saying that it is unfair that they are getting treated that way over something as petty as numbers.


I don't care if people say Under God in the pledge or not, I can skip over it. But when people are not allowed to practice their religion because of another religion being offended and using their power in government and society to push people around, that's when I get really upset...


I agree with you here. But dont think thats how Christians act as a whole. Steriotypes dont go away very easily, you know. Of course, over two billion people are 'Christians' and of course there is going to be problems, but not all Christians are that way.

5aret



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 5aret
So the freedom of religion goes out the window here, huh? So now we just ignore religion and again, pretend that religion does not exist. Doesnt sound like freedom to me.


I guess it depends on what you mean by freedom of religion then. If freedom of religion means hanging God things all around wherever you go, then I guess you might feel like your freedom is being trampled on. The problem arises when your freedom to practice your religion tramples on someone else's freedom to practice theirs or not to practice at all.

You can't convince me that disallowing the 10 commandments in a courtroom or the displaying of "In God we Trust" in the schoolroom is preventing you from practicing your religion. Not when you the individual are free to pray, read the bible, wear a cross or whatever you want in those places.



I agree, I meant that we ignore religion and act like there is no God, even though we do think the opposite. Its hard to explain.


Well, when there are these plaques hanging about, we are forced to pretend there is a God.



Did you even read what an attorney said about that?


Of course I read it. Isn't it clear that I've read everything you wrote?


The thing is, I'm not disagreeing with him. The words Under God don't constutute the formal establishment of a particular religion, but they do constitute the establishment of God, which many people in this country don't believe in.



Just as much as it makes no sense to me that we have religious freedom and we are supposed to ignore it when we are in a public forum.


Why do you think you have to ignore it? Isn't your God there even when there are no plaques and statues around? Do you need a constant reminder of your religion? Why must everyone participate or be subjected to religion? You can wear a cross around your neck and carry a bible, you can pray and hold religious meetings. WHY must everyone else be involved? What do you need to prove?

Why can you not be a beacon of religion if you want, but leave the public property to accomodate everyone? When you hang a sign in a room, it represents the room. When you hang a cross around your neck, it represents you only. You can put a little sign on your desk. That would represented only you.

You don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be represented by your religion.




As long as we arent forcing someone into our beliefs, we should be able to pray, etc.. and do whatever we want to practice that freedom.


I totally agree. You the individual should be free to practice your religion wherever you are. But when you hang a sign that says "In God We Trust" in front of the classroom, you've just smeared your beliefs all over everyone else in the room. And if they don't trust in God, you've just misrepresented them.

But that doesn't seem to matter as long as you (and I mean the generic you, but specifically the Christians who push this behavior) get what you want.
That's why people get so pissed about this subject. Because it seems that as long as you have what you want, you just don't care how other people feel. As long as you can hang your plaques and statues in government funded buildings and classrooms, you don't care that you might be infringing on others' Constitutional freedom to practice religion or not.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Just another point...

Here on ATS, you have your avatar, your signature and your title to represent you. You choose to have these be religious in nature. See? I have NO problem with that whatsoever. It's who you are and I'm thrilled for you.

But comparing ATS to the classroom scenario, hanging a plaque in front of the class that says "In God We Trust" would be like placing a graphic on the front page of ATS that reads "In God we Trust".

Immediately, ATS no longer represents me.

ATS isn't about religion any more than public school is. ATS doesn't advocate any particular religion, or religion at all. You're free to express your personal beliefs with your avatar (your cyber person), but that's all. You can't insist that they display religious graphics.

And that's the way it should be in schools, courthouses and other public government-funded institutions and entities.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You can't convince me that disallowing the 10 commandments in a courtroom or the displaying of "In God we Trust" in the schoolroom is preventing you from practicing your religion. Not when you the individual are free to pray, read the bible, wear a cross or whatever you want in those places.


I agree with you to an extant. I think its either all religions are treated equally, or there is no religious objects in public forums. Like if there is the 10 commandments, then if an Arab wants an exept from the Quaran, than it should be allowed.



The thing is, I'm not disagreeing with him. The words Under God don't constutute the formal establishment of a particular religion, but they do constitute the establishment of God, which many people in this country don't believe in.


But many still do. Thats what I mean by having that thing allowing you to either say it, or not say it.



Why do you think you have to ignore it? Isn't your God there even when there are no plaques and statues around? Do you need a constant reminder of your religion? Why must everyone participate or be subjected to religion? You can wear a cross around your neck and carry a bible, you can pray and hold religious meetings. WHY must everyone else be involved? What do you need to prove?


I think that this is happening becuase of the mere numbers. There are alot more Christians than pagans, you know. So there is more people putting up crosses than symbols of paganism. Im not saying to put up crosses and the like, I am saying that we should be allowed to hold our religious values in public, without pressuring anyone into our religion of course.


Why can you not be a beacon of religion if you want, but leave the public property to accomodate everyone? When you hang a sign in a room, it represents the room. When you hang a cross around your neck, it represents you only. You can put a little sign on your desk. That would represented only you.


I agree with you, there is not arguement here. I am not talking about signs, I am talking about not ignoring the religious nature of a whole lot of Americans.


You don't seem to understand that not everyone wants to be represented by your religion.


Oh yes I do fully understand. People want to be represented by whatever they want to, not by being forced by another religion you do not believe in.



I totally agree. You the individual should be free to practice your religion wherever you are. But when you hang a sign that says "In God We Trust" in front of the classroom, you've just smeared your beliefs all over everyone else in the room. And if they don't trust in God, you've just misrepresented them.


No offense, but if people are that worked up about something as little as that.....

Anyway, if they are pagan and dont believe in God persay, than they should allow signs symbolizing paganism. If you are an atheist, show a sign of an invisible pink unicorn. Either that, or no signs at all. But thats not what Im talking about. Im talking about petty things that happen. Like songs at Christmas not allowed to have any religous meaning to them. It completely removes any religiousness from our society, even if we have that freedom. Thats what I mean by freedom from religion.


But that doesn't seem to matter as long as you (and I mean the generic you, but specifically the Christians who push this behavior) get what you wantThat's why people get so pissed about this subject. Because it seems that as long as you have what you want, you just don't care how other people feel. As long as you can hang your plaques and statues in government funded buildings and classrooms, you don't care that you might be infringing on others' Constitutional freedom to practice religion or not.


To alliterate, one sign is not going to stop someone from practicing their religion or lack of it. If you are of another religion, then put your own sign up. If your atheist, put an atheistic sign up. And alot of Christians do care about religious freedom. Its not freedom of practicing your religion thats bothering me, its completely abolosishing anything religious just because a few atheists get upset over something thats not that big. (relavtively)(sp?)

5aret



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But comparing ATS to the classroom scenario, hanging a plaque in front of the class that says "In God We Trust" would be like placing a graphic on the front page of ATS that reads "In God we Trust".
Immediately, ATS no longer represents me.


I totally agree with you. They shouldnt have 'In God we Trust" on ATS logos. Because not everyone is represented, and that is unfair and is against your freedoms. Its the little things that dont really matter that bug me.


ATS isn't about religion any more than public school is. ATS doesn't advocate any particular religion, or religion at all. You're free to express your personal beliefs with your avatar (your cyber person), but that's all. You can't insist that they display religious graphics.
And that's the way it should be in schools, courthouses and other public government-funded institutions and entities.


Yes, because the in god we trust thing is not representing everyone and is unfair to atheists or people of other religions.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Freedom of or from religion?

Both. Because you can't have the one without the other. In order for individuals and churches to enjoy freedom of religion, the government must be free from religion. Because any religious observance by the government inevitably works to bias the state against religions that are not observed.

The government, and all branches thereof, must be absolutely forbidden to make any statement or take any action, in any way, shape, or form, implying support for any religion whatsoever. That means:

No organized prayer in public schools.
No Ten Commandments displayed in courtrooms.
No religious symbols or artwork displayed in any public building at any time of the year.
No religious observances of any kind undertaken by any branch of government.

None of this infringes on the right of people to practice their religion. On the contrary. Doing any of those thing would infringe on the right of people who follow religions not represented in the prayer, displays, or observances, to practice their religion instead of the sanctioned faith.

The only way to keep the government out of religion, is to also keep religion out of the government. Completely.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I believe in both.

If you want to practice your religon, thats fine. Do it and be well.

However, there are people that do not want ANYTHING to do with religon in their personal lives, and certainly dont want their nation's polices to be ruled hy religon.

People have the freedom to worship, but they also have the freedom NOT to worship. And not have religon forced on them. Some athiests believe religon is the cause of many evils, and thus, their own personal ethics are opposed to have religon pushed at them.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I believe in both.

If you want to practice your religon, thats fine. Do it and be well.

However, there are people that do not want ANYTHING to do with religon in their personal lives, and certainly dont want their nation's polices to be ruled hy religon.

People have the freedom to worship, but they also have the freedom NOT to worship. And not have religon forced on them. Some athiests believe religon is the cause of many evils, and thus, their own personal ethics are opposed to have religon pushed at them.



I believe you summed up exactly what I felt perfectly


Both


[edit on 15-7-2006 by TONE23]



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   
There is a fundamental reason why the Founding Fathers attempted to create a High Wall of Separation between church and state....and its actually straight forward and logical.

IF you allow God/Goddess/Demons what have you it removes two things A) Responsibility and B) Culpability.

It’s the whole God made me do it line. You cant argue with that...You can say the person was misguided or that he/she was crazy....but you cannot argue with their base argument....you can say it didn’t happen but you cannot argue with that person because that person believe "god" made them do it.

By allowing religion to get intermixed with politics you do the same thing. Not my fault I was doing what the bible said and this horrible thing happened....

If you want a good idea of what happens when you let politics and religion mix look at the Middle East....if that’s what you want...then I can’t argue with you because God told you that’s what He/She/It/They wanted.

I believe that The First Amendment gives us both Freedom of Religion and Freedom from religion.

I am a recovered Baptist and boy did I buy into their dogma when I was of that faith...I am not now...and maybe because I was I am more cognizant of THE HUGE amount of influence and control the Christian Faith has over this country. I could find ten fifteen copies of The Bible in my old schools but not one copy of the Tao Te Ching or the Dama Pada or the Koran.

I hear prayers at baseball games and leaders saying God Bless America and there is only one god they are talking about....They are talking about the Judeo Christian God....

So while I can still think what I want...there are places where what the above poster mentioned is true in regards pagans. So do we truly have freedom of religion? Or just freedom to attempt to be non-christian as long as we don’t in anyway display it. But you can run around with your crosses and tattoos. It seems like a real double standard exists here in the United States I know that my sister and her friends who are all Pagan were having a ritual in our house with the windows open and we had a privacy fence. About an hour or so after they had started their ritual there was a knock at our door and the Local Law enforcement was standing there and asked if we were contacting Satan. This is 100% truth no exaggeration.... It seems one of our good Christian neighbors had seen them and called the police. Over a privacy fence through a window....

So I have to disagree with you fundamentally...There is too much religious freedom for Chris tans and the numerous cults and factions that make up the Faith of Jesus Christ of Nazareth....If anything we need to string back some of the freedoms that James Dobson seems to think the Christian Faith has.

We will have true religious freedom when one can believe as they wish to believe without having government regulation....but because all most all faiths will go WAY beyond their rights if allowed. It’s not just a Juedo Christian thing...it only appears to be because here in the West those are the Vocal groups....

I close with a great verse from the bible....It can be found in the New Testament....in Mathew Chapter 6 versus 5-7


"and when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have recieved thier reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 03:37 PM
link   
RAH! RAH! SHISHH BOOM BAH! GOoooooooOOOO POM POM!

But seriously, Elsenorpompom you have also touched on, quite succinctly, some very valid points that I whole heartedly agree with



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join