Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Faith and Politics, in Ohio

This sounds pretty neat. Over in Columbus, Ohio, they got some preachers and religious leaders from the left and the right together and had a forum, let everybody express their hopes and fears, especially focusing on questions about the role of religion in American politics.

The Columbus Dispatch tells you about it:
The country has gone awry when children can't sing Silent Night or pray in school, a minister told an audience Downtown yesterday.

"The forces of darkness … should never silence people of faith," said Russell Johnson, senior pastor of the Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster.

"We don't want to be muzzled behind stained-glass windows. We want to make a difference."

Eric Williams, senior pastor of North Congregational Church of Christ in Columbus, said he is concerned when religious values won't value all citizens.

"The church needs to stand apart from government and be an able partner so that all citizens might benefit," Williams said.

Johnson and others argued the left has worked to stifle the voice of religion in the U.S.

Williams and others voiced a concern that some in the religious right are promoting a Protestant theocracy. Faith's place in politics debated: Event questions role of the right and left in pushing agendas

Reading this, you want to agree with both of them. People will believe, and that's fine. Honestly, I think the problem comes when some people think they should convert other people to their religion. If it wasn't for that, what's wrong with a little Silent Night at Christmastime? It's a pretty enough song. It seems to me that our schools in Rockville typically have a holiday concert, and they do songs from a lot of religions. Well, we have students from a lot of religions, that makes sense to me, especially if the music's good. It's not necessarily just "politically correct" to sing songs that reflect other ways of life, is it?

And the theocracy thing, too. What he said.

Anyway, it's not easy. I can't say I have the answer.

(Hey, this was funny, the rightwing web site WorldNet Daily had a letter last year that put the shoe on the other foot. Check it out HERE. This dude had his eyes opened for good.)

So what was this event?
The speakers were joined by activists on their respective sides, at a forum called "Church and State in Ohio's Electoral Politics." An audience of more than 150 watched a lively but civil discussion in the Riffe Center.

"The issue in Ohio is the same all over the country," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, which co-sponsored the forum. "Will churches willingly or unwittingly become soap boxes for certain candidates?"

Williams and 30 other ministers filed a complaint against Johnson and World Harvest Church Pastor Rod Parsley in January, claiming the two were violating laws for tax-exempt organizations. The ministers said the evangelical pastors were politicking for J. Kenneth Blackwell, the conservative Republican candidate for governor. Johnson leads the conservative Ohio Restoration Project to enlist "patriot pastors" and register "values voters" for conservative causes.

All of the panelists agreed that church leaders can speak about issues such as abortion, poverty and war in the context of current events.

Well, it goes on. Follow the link for more.

You see that phrase -- "lively but civil?" I like that. It definitely sounds like these guys said what they meant, didn't beat around the bush, but they didn't have to get all CRC about it. I don't see where anybody sued anybody afterwards. I didn't see anybody accusing anybody of being atheists or Satanists.

Of course religion is at the heart of our controversy here over sex education in Montgomery County. Some people say their religion tells them that homosexuality is a sin, and they don't think it ought to be mentioned in a health class. Others belong to religions that promote the idea that gay people can and should stop being gay, and they think that ought to be part of the curriculum. And some of us just think it would be nice to teach what most scientific and medical experts in the field believe to be true, and what anybody with common sense sees to be the kindest approach, that some people are just gay and that's that.

We're planning to have a forum soon on this topic, ourselves. Teach the Facts is working with another group to present some discussions of the role of religion in the schools. We have been contacting speakers, and arranging a room and stuff, for later in November. It's tricky, these preachers are busy people. But we think it would be worthwhile to bring together some leaders from different religious institutions in our county, and hear what they think about the interaction of religion and education. Should religion be kept out of the schools? What speech is protected, and what is offensive? The pamphlet-in-the-backpack thing -- I don't think anybody's happy with the way that whole issue has gone -- what about materials that get handed out at school? How should religion affect the development of a curriculum, or should it at all?

None of this is easy, America has been negotiating a tricky course for the last couple of hundred years. The interpretations keep changing, but the Constitution stands solid.

Anyway, we'll keep you informed about our plans as we go along.

30 Comments:

Blogger Theresa said...

Ok Jim.

Agree or disagree ?

A PG county school student was told by the supervisor that she could not read her Bible on school grounds during her free time, and she would be suspended if she continued.
Agree or Disagree ?

If Day of Silence is allowed, Day of Truth should be allowed as well.

Agree or DisAgree ?

In Germany, parents were told they could not homeschool their child, the child had to be in the public school system where the child could be taught that homosexuality was normal (that was against the parent's religous values, but in Germany the kids apparently belong to the state).
Agree or Disagree ?


In Australia, Catholic schools are now being forced to run tolerance training sessions, including teaching that homosexuality is normal, against of course what the Catholic faith teaches...
Agree or Disagree ?

Recently, Gov. Bob Erhlich FIRED a Catholic for stating that his faith taught him that homosexuality was a deviant behavior.
Agree or Disagree ?

And, let's not forget :
It was the rejected curriculum that postulated and introduced the concept of whether homosexuality was a sin - referring kids to religons other then their own, in a suggested quiz for teachers to give students ...
Agree or Disagree ?

Oh, and recently a group of glbt activists have filed a friend of the court brief in the David Parker case, that a parent has no right to object to ANYTHING the public schools want to teach them, regardless of whether it conflicts with their faith or not... by the way, do you think it is okay for a second grader to be read "King and King" without parental approval ...
Agree or Disagree ?

Exactly WHOSE RIGHTS ARE BEING TROMPED ON HERE ? IT'S NOT THE GAYS. IT IS MY RIGHTS AS A PARENT.

October 11, 2006 10:26 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa, none of this is simple. Also, I think there is probably more to some of these stories than your brief summaries describe. Why would anybody tell a kid they can't read the Bible in school? There is almost always something else going on. One person's exercise of freedom might infringe on another's -- who wins? Luckily for me, I'm not the one that decides.

JimK

October 11, 2006 11:39 AM  
Anonymous Daisy said...

Would you prefer this, Theresa?

"...Last year, religious right groups embarked on a five-year campaign to implant after-school "Good News Clubs" in every public elementary school in the United States. Mathew Staver, a leader of the club initiative and President of Liberty Counsel, wrote: "Classrooms are full of unchurched children waiting to hear about a Savior who loves them and forgives sin." According to Staver, Good News Clubs are "high-powered Sunday school which can now be established in the public schools immediately after school."

Staver says the fellowship's goal with the Good News Clubs is to "evangelize boys and girls with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to establish them in the Word of God and in a local church for Christian living. That is accomplished by teaching children, ages 5-12, about Jesus through Bible lessons, missionary stories, Scripture memorization and review games—all in a fun and energetic child-friendly way."

October 11, 2006 11:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Honestly, I think the problem comes when some people think they should convert other people to their religion."

Jim & Daisy

There is so much here, I can and probably will spends days responding.

Let's start with this above. All Christians who believe in the Bible are obligated to make known their religious beliefs and the availability of the benefits of those beliefs to all mankind. The last command of Jesus was to make disciples of all nations. The problem comes with the overeaction to this. Encouraging everyone to share your beliefs is not offensive.

Ariel Sharon puts this well a few years back. Some orthodox Israelis were protesting an evangelical group's plans to build a study center in Israel. they want him to put a stop to it. He said, "Jews have got to get over the fear that someone is going to convert them." This would apply to liberals in the U.S. too. If you are secure in your own convictions, why are you so threatened if someone else is free to proclaim theirs?

October 11, 2006 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A PG county school student was told by the supervisor that she could not read her Bible on school grounds during her free time, and she would be suspended if she continued."

It's possible there is more to the story, Jim, but assuming there isn't for a moment, what would your position be here?

October 11, 2006 12:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Classrooms are full of unchurched children waiting to hear about a Savior..."

Public school classrooms are full of students who want to learn academic subjects. If their parents want them to learn about a Saviour or any other religious belief, they can take them to their preferred house of worship.

October 11, 2006 12:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Public school classrooms are full of students who want to learn academic subjects."

Religion is an academic subject. Just last week, Harvard University announced they are adding a religion requirement to their core curriculum. Without understanding religion, one will never understand much about what's going on in the world today.

"If their parents want them to learn about a Saviour or any other religious belief, they can take them to their preferred house of worship."

Having freedom of religion, we don't confine religious speech to certain controlled areas. If other types of groups are allowed to use school facilities and distribution networks, evangelistic groups have the same right as long as any one group isn't given preferential treatment. The Supreme Court has ruled on this- and that was before the recent changes. Wait til the Roberts court gets a hold of one of these cases.

October 11, 2006 12:53 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

It's possible there is more to the story, Jim, but assuming there isn't for a moment, what would your position be here?

I wish they were all this easy. If a kid's just sitting there at lunchtime reading quietly, of course that's fine with me. Who wants to bet that that's what really happened here?

The clue comes from the other Anon who just told us that some Christians feel obligated to try to convert people. I would assert that classroom time should not be spent on such an activity, and I would find it reasonable to support the rights of other students not to be harassed by a zealot.

But that wasn't the question.

JimK

October 11, 2006 12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I wish they were all this easy. If a kid's just sitting there at lunchtime reading quietly, of course that's fine with me. Who wants to bet that that's what really happened here?

The clue comes from the other Anon who just told us that some Christians feel obligated to try to convert people. I would assert that classroom time should not be spent on such an activity, and I would find it reasonable to support the rights of other students not to be harassed by a zealot."

Well, I'd agree if someone was being obnoxious and wouldn't leave other kids alone they should be told to do so. Indeed, Jesus specifically said there is no obligation to continue to pursue those who clearly reject his message.

Still, the story as told is possibly correct. There is a phobia and sometimes an antipathy toward Christianity in the public school system. There is also a widespread misunderstanding that allowing the very mention of religion in public schools is a constitutional violation. I know, for example, of many people whose kids brought up their religious beliefs in some writing assignment and were told they couldn't mention that in their papers.

The story in PG County is really not that unbelievable. Remember the school district in California that forbade reading the actual text of America's founding documents because of their religious references.

While we're at it, it's worth mentioning that the founding fathers never intended for education and religion to be seperated. At the time, education wasn't controlled by the government. Additionally, the Constitution forbids laws passed by Congress favoring particular religions. School boards are run by local governments not Congress. Generalized encouragement of religion is also not forbidden only favoring certain sects or denominations. The whole idea that the Constitution has banished religion from schools is a ridiculous notion that gained fashion in the late 20th century and will soon be corrected.

October 11, 2006 1:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Harvard University announced they are adding a religion requirement"

Harvard University is a private institution and as such is free to require whatever it wishes. The same is not true of our public schools. What goes on in our public school classrooms after hours is another question altogether because attendence of afterschool functions is, like signing up for human sexuality classes in MCPS, optional.

The whole idea that the Constitution has banished religion from schools is a ridiculous notion that gained fashion in the late 20th century and will soon be corrected.

Counting on activist jurists are you? Good luck with that...

"Court won't rethink 'Mary Doe' abortion case
POSTED: 4:02 p.m. EDT, October 10, 2006
By Bill Mears
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Tuesday from a Georgia woman seeking to reverse a 1973 Supreme Court ruling giving her the right to an abortion.

Sandra Cano was part of the original series of landmark rulings from the high court legalizing the medical procedure. The justices without comment refused to reopen the case.

Cano, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, was "Mary Doe" in the Doe v. Bolton appeal that was a companion argument to the more famous Roe v. Wade, both decided on January 22, 1973.

While the "Roe" opinion grounded first-trimester access to abortion in a constitutional right to privacy, Doe v. Bolton loosened medical requirements for those seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

Cano stated in her appeal that she had never wanted an abortion in the first place, had been living in an abusive relationship, and had been forced by her attorney to fight the abortion option in court.

The high court several years ago rejected a similar legal appeal from Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade. McCorvey, a resident of Texas, also sought to overturn the case that gave her the right to an abortion.

Since the McCorvey rejection, Sandra Day O'Connor, who generally supported access to abortion, has retired from the bench, replaced in January by Justice Samuel Alito. The change did not appear to make a difference in the latest challenge..."



http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/10/scotus.abortion/index.html

October 11, 2006 1:58 PM  
Anonymous Vive la difference! said...

"All Christians who believe in the Bible are obligated to make known their religious beliefs and the availability of the benefits of those beliefs to all mankind."

That may be true for you, but it is not true for me. I am a Christian who believes in the Bible and I have no such obligation. Your interpretation of Christianity and the Bible is different than mine. You do not speak for "All Christians who believe in the Bible."

October 11, 2006 2:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Theresa, the Day of Silence is about accepting others when they aren't doing anything that hurts you. The "Day of Truth" creates a hostile environment for a group of students. It demonizes gays saying they are evil sick and will be eternally tortured. The "Day of Truth" does not belong in schools anymore than the KKK deserves a voice in schools to teach that blacks are souless inferior people worthy of enslavement. Any relgious or parental ideas that preach hatred like this have no place in public schools, you have freedom in your churchs for that, that is more than enough. Society is based on cooperation and schools have the right and obligation to encourage social harmony with groups like LGBTs that aren't hurting anyone.

Anonymous at October 11, 2006 12:06 PM said "All Christians who believe in the Bible are obligated to make known...those beliefs to all mankind. ...Encouraging everyone to share your beliefs is not offensive.".

When you're encouraging others to share hateful beliefs like gays and non-believers deserve to be oppressed and tortured eternally it is offensive, harmful and wrong, wrong, wrong. Morally speaking everyone is free to do whatever they want as long as they aren't interfering in anyone else's right to do the same. If another is not huring anyone you have no right to oppose or criticize them.

Messages of acceptance and harmony belong in schools, religious or parental messages of hate, oppression, and rejection have no place there.

October 11, 2006 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Harvard University is a private institution and as such is free to require whatever it wishes."

Yes, it is. That's probably what accounts for its excellence. The point I was making was that any kids thirsty for academics, as the poster had said, will want to know about religion. The fact that the best university in America agrees was simply support for my thought.

"Counting on activist jurists are you?"

No, counting on scholarly judges who will reverse the activist abuses of past justices.

October 11, 2006 2:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That may be true for you, but it is not true for me. I am a Christian who believes in the Bible and I have no such obligation."

That's interesting. What's your interpretation of Acts 1:8?

October 11, 2006 2:36 PM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Some of us believe it is very dangerous to over-sexualize children too early. That is the harm.

For those of us who believe that kids shouldn't be having sex in highschool (I think the numbers are something like 90% of parents want kids to wait until they are older) - a "day of silence" is an affront. If you allow a day of silence, you allow a day of truth, otherwise you are hypocritical.

If PFLAG and GLSEN can meet on school grounds, so can religous groups. Fair is fair.

Are you claiming all religous mesages are hateful ? I would disagree. Religons and the bible by far believe that sodomy is a sin... love the sinner, hate the sin. Because they disapprove of homosexual sex they are hateful ? I don't think you can make that leap.


http://www.gazette.net/stories/100906/princou124018_31963.shtml

October 11, 2006 5:06 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Theresa

I have to ask: what in the world would a Day of Silence have to do with over-sexualization of children?

It seems to me that it only has to do with emphasizing empathy and good will to those who are different from us.

Do you think that somehow a Day of Silence ... I don't know, I hate to ask ... do you think it somehow encourages someone to have sex? I apologize if I have misinterpreted what you said.

But I don't get it.

JimK

October 11, 2006 5:20 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Theresa, Day of Silence has nothing to do with encouraging anyone to have sex, its about acknowledging that just as some people are opposite sex attracted some are same sex attracted and the latter is needlessly and unfairly rejected and oppressed. Gay adolescent deserve the same right their straight peers have to date free from harrassment.

Children are learn from a very young age that boys and girls, men and women, mommies and daddies like and are attracted to each other. This doesn't sexualize them and by the same token neither does learning some boys like boys and some men like men and vice versa with females. Pre-pubescent children simply couldn't care less about sex even when it does come up, they just are not interested - have you honestly ever seen a non-adolescent who's "sexualized", who has any interest in sex whatsoever?

I am not claiming all religious messages are hateful. In fact I particularly like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.". Christians would do well to focus on that and ignore the hateful idea that two men loving each other is sinful. You wouldn't want anyone threatening you with eternal torture because you're attracted to men, so why would you do that to any gay male? Its not so hard to understand.

Christianity has become so dominated with hateful anti-gay messages that this dominates its image, nothing good. Nowadays, when someone tells me they are a Christian its the same as saying "I hate and try to hurt gays." If you're going to have one Christian message dominate the image of your religion let it be "Do unto others...", not "gays should be rejected and tortured.".

Religious groups should be welcome to meet on school grounds as long as they are not creating a hostile environment for people that aren't hurting them. You wouldn't want Christian white supremacist groups there to preach about how evil and inferior blacks and jews are, would you?

October 11, 2006 6:14 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at October 11, 2006 2:36 PM

Acts 1:8 doesn't says Christians have the ability to speak of a few things in the bible, it doesn't say they are obligated to.

October 11, 2006 6:20 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Oops, my previous comment should have said "Acts 1:8 SAYS Christians have the ability to speak of a few things in the bible, it doesn't say they are obligated to.

October 11, 2006 8:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Nowadays, when someone tells me they are a Christian its the same as saying "I hate and try to hurt gays.""

That's because you immerse yourself in propaganda. It's similar to why Arabs don't believe in the Holocaust.

October 11, 2006 9:11 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

That's the first I've heard that the Arabs as a people don't believe in the holocaust. Forgive me if I don't believe you.

Yes, I'm certainly immersed in unavoidable propaganda, propaganda coming from Christians - anti-gay hate labeled with code phrases like "protect marriage", "family values", "values voters", etc.

October 11, 2006 9:29 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Randi writes,

That's the first I've heard that the Arabs as a people don't believe in the holocaust. Forgive me if I don't believe you.

If that is the first you have heard that then you need to read a little more in this area before offering your disbelief. Here are some links,

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/
denial_ME/hdme_genocide_denial.asp

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/
weblog/?entry=8685

http://www.adl.org/holocaust/
denial_ME/default.asp

Knowledge is the antidote to ignorance...

October 12, 2006 4:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Acts 1:8 SAYS Christians have the ability to speak of a few things in the bible, it doesn't say they are obligated to."

Randi

I assume you weren't the person I had been responding to since that person said they were a Christian. Since they haven't responded to me, though, I guess there no harm in including you.

Here's the text of Acts 1:8 from the English Standard Version:

"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth."

This has been interpreted by the church through the ages as a command and is indeed commonly referred to as the Great Commission.

Whether this interpretation is correct or not, the truth is that it is generally accepted and, thus, to say that Christians should abandon the idea of converting others would be asking them to sacrifice their religious beliefs.

You will notice that they are called to "make disciples" by being "witnesses". This is not a call to militancy or coercion or obnoxiousness. There is no reason why anyone should be offended by it in a pluralistic and diverse. You will note that it is only in societies of Christian heritage where diversity and unity can co-exist.

October 12, 2006 5:15 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "You will note that it is only in societies of Christian heritage where diversity and unity can co-exist.".

And before women got the vote there were no nuclear weapons. Canada and Nordic countries that legally recognize same sex relationships are much more secular than the U.S. Before Europeans came to North America most NON-CHRISTIAN native tribes not only accepted gays, they exhalted them - two-spirited people were often the native's shaman's and spiritual leaders. They believed gays were a bridge between the sexes and an important gift.

Your bible says gays must be put to death, it says non-believers should be tortured for an eternity. Unity and diversity happen despite Christianity, certainly not because of it.

October 12, 2006 12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Before Europeans came to North America most NON-CHRISTIAN native tribes not only accepted gays, they exhalted them - two-spirited people were often the native's shaman's and spiritual leaders. They believed gays were a bridge between the sexes and an important gift."

Sounds interesting, Randi. Any reference or source for that?

October 12, 2006 1:18 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I'm just about to leave the house so I don't have time to dig you up any references right now. I first read about this in a book by Pat Califa(spelling?) called Sex Changes. You could also do a google search on the term berdache.
I'll try and dig up some links tomorrow afternoon or evening if you haven't found anything.

October 12, 2006 1:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-spirit

October 12, 2006 3:46 PM  
Blogger andrear said...

A. I have a hard time believing that for no reason a child was stopped from reading the Bible. If it was not during class(my son was stopped from reading a biology text in history class some years ago) or if the child was reading out loud(sorry, I don't care what you say your religion requires- my kids shouldn't have to listen to your kid preach the Gospel). That said- it was PG county and who knows what goes on there- maybe the kid didn't pay off the superintendent. Absolutely, a child should be able to read the Bible during lunch or free time.

As to the constant harping on the antipathy to Christianity in public schools here- Puhleeze. At the winter concerts in Montgomery County schools- my daughter has played religious songs every year and religious songs have been sung. None of this jingle bells or even White Christmas(they do those as well)- I'm talking O Holy Night and Silent Night. Your idea of religious oppression is that your beliefs are not valued over everyone else. Sorry but looking for that? That's why there are parochial schools. I don't scream that they serve shrimp poppers and bacon in the cafeteria.

October 12, 2006 4:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(sorry, I don't care what you say your religion requires- my kids shouldn't have to listen to your kid preach the Gospel)."

Your kids don't have to listen to it. The proper way to exercise that right is to walk away. There's no excuse for censorship of religious ideas. Also, in any forum for a exchange of ideas- say a classrom discussion, any kid should feel free to bring the perspective of their religious tradition. Your kids will then be obligated to hear that perspective along with all other perspectives. Kids need to get used to the idea that there are people who are different than them. I've got a feeling though that kids don't object to this- it's certain parents and administrators carrying around too much baggage that bring the objections.

"Absolutely, a child should be able to read the Bible during lunch or free time."

We have achieved consensus.

"As to the constant harping on the antipathy to Christianity in public schools here- Puhleeze."

Oh come on, Andrea. Think of the money and time MCPS has squandered trying to get out the obligation to allow Christian groups the same distribution services it provided to the rest of the public. It has been ruled repeatedly that its effort was biased. Couple this with opinion of the judge in the CRC suit that they discriminated against traditional religious denominations and its clear that an antipathy exists.

This is probably the only county in the country where the judiciary has to keep intervening to protect the rights of Christians.

"At the winter concerts in Montgomery County schools- my daughter has played religious songs every year and religious songs have been sung. None of this jingle bells or even White Christmas(they do those as well)- I'm talking O Holy Night and Silent Night."

Never heard this but I'll take your word for it. I do know one downcounty school that would occasionally play a number by a black gospel choir during football games.

"Your idea of religious oppression is that your beliefs are not valued over everyone else."

No, it's when religious ideas are treated like pornography.

"Sorry but looking for that? That's why there are parochial schools."

While we're on the subject, parents with kids in these schools pay taxes like everyone else and deserve the same government support.

"I don't scream that they serve shrimp poppers and bacon in the cafeteria."

And I don't scream when other religious perspectives are discussed. I object when mine is excluded.

I will support replacing all hot dogs with Hebrew National beef dogs. Those things are great!

H.A.

October 13, 2006 2:30 PM  
Anonymous Gary Aknos said...

This was also covered at Mainline Truths

October 15, 2006 9:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home