Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Civilized Religion (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Civilized Religion
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No comments about liberals in this one. I think this is a piece that, by and large, even Hitchens could get behind.

I think that if government is good for anything it should take away the IRS exempt status from a religious organization that refuses to renounce murder as a tenant of their beliefs. Is it really so much to ask of mosques?

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But the fact that in almost every place the Spanish conquered, large populations of Indians survived, can be credited to Christianity.
The aboriginals also made useful slaves, I understand.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, as OSC might say, would you have wanted the Aztecs to have colonized the world and exported human sacrifice everywhere?
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In most cases, though, religions -- particularly those with gods -- also offer a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.
Quick poll: answering honestly, which religion has been the most peaceful and least aggressive, historically speaking?

Or, to put it another way, are there any more violent religions, historically, than theistic ones, particularly montheistic ones?

I'ld also invite people to compare Constantine's conversion to Ashoka's. Religion can certainly be a pacifying influence, but to say that theistic religions are better at it is ignorant.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But the fact that in almost every place the Spanish conquered, large populations of Indians survived, can be credited to Christianity."

Large as in 5-10%?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Straygaldwyr
Member
Member # 4465

 - posted      Profile for Straygaldwyr   Email Straygaldwyr       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
By a coincidence of parallel structure it turns out that monotheistic religions make better armies. It is not that they have been 'more violent' after conversion or more violent then the pagans they conquered, they have been better organized and therefore better soldiers, the level of general human violence has dropped since the emergence of monotheism and Christianity in particular for thousands of years. It was never that the small tribe worshiping Jo Jo the inseminator was not violent, they were and still are where they have managed to survive, it was simply that their brutality was never effectively organized and coordinated...
Posts: 1520 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Russ
Member
Member # 961

 - posted      Profile for Russ     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
I think that if government is good for anything it should take away the IRS exempt status from a religious organization that refuses to renounce murder as a tenant of their beliefs. Is it really so much to ask of mosques?

Tenet ?

Certainly sounds a reasonable suggestion to me.

But on what basis do you propose to decide what criteria of morality or civilization a religion has to live up to in order to enjoy the freedoms that America is so proud of ?

You can appeal to the law of the land. But the law is whatever Congress says it is.

It's not hard to imagine a situation in which Christian churches don't accept some freedom which is enshrined in law. Such as the freedom to be homosexual... Would that mean that Christianity should no longer count as a religion ?

Is the bottom line that the State demands a monopoly on violence just because it can ?

Is Americanism in effect a religion ?

Seems to me that the article raises questions and offers no solution...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posts: 16 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
In most cases, though, religions -- particularly those with gods -- also offer a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.
Quick poll: answering honestly, which religion has been the most peaceful and least aggressive, historically speaking?
The small ones. It's hard to get a good war started if you're a mystery cult or your followers are a thinly spread minority.

Oh and I guess the ones where all the faithful live monastic or ascetic lives in their own communities. Say what you will about christianity in general, I doubt you'll find many wars started by sects like the Amish [Smile]

Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, there are no religions in the U.S. or elsewhere that advocate murder.

All the killings they advocate are completely justified.

Just ask them. [Smile]

Otherwise this would mean we should take away the tax exempt status of any church that allows the death penalty. [Big Grin]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I love how only one person has even addressed the central point of OSC essay. Pick on, you nit pickers.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
!

OSC may not read Ornery, but he is here desperately trying to confront the charges which some of us have leveled at 'religion'.

I think Adam has pulled out the most-problematic comment:

... religions -- particularly those with gods -- ... offer a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.

That just hasn't worked out in history. The most-barbarous and most-violent century of all centuries was the 20th when religion reached both its apex and its nadir.

When push came to shove, neither religion (Bolivia, Italy, Germany, and Japan, for aggressive examples) nor its implosion (Russia) acted as a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.

I would also question the conclusion that it was better that Spain Christianized South America than, say, it might have been had Peru Incafyied (?) Spain. 17 million Amerindians died in the invasion, and I'm not buying the Catholic claim that this was all God's Will.

And, needless to say, I would beg differ with OSC's blanket condemnation of "those who would like to tell you that no religion is civilized," because we "tend to be people whose ignorance of history is so profound as to appear deliberate."

Well, that is the ignorance I'm pointing out for which religionists are infamous; and I think I've been able to prove my point in regards to the Catholic ignorance of the millions of homosexuals whose barbaric deaths it authorized.

And, WIAI, knowing numerous Gamofites and members of Affirmation, I might blurt another trumpet blast of angelic disbelief!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
martel
Member
Member # 3448

 - posted      Profile for martel   Email martel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"When push came to shove, neither religion (Bolivia, Italy, Germany, and Japan, for aggressive examples) nor its implosion (Russia) acted as a mitigating force against violence and barbarity."

I'd argue instead that the 20th century examples you cite are a good argument that religion DOES limit violence to some degree. The most brutal conflicts in human history have taken place in the last 100 years, and look at the instigators--they were mostly countries that, having once been Christian, had given in to other ideologies (even though some still purported to be Christian). Facism and communism are the obvious examples--but also the nationalism that led to World War I. You'll never see anything written by Bismark or Lloyd George or anyone else from that period dealing with religion--because while they publicly (usually) professed Christianity, it entered hardly at all into their decisions/lives. Even the Romanovs--you call it the implosion of religion, but remember that the early Romanovs had subordinated the Church to the state, thus making power effectively their god.

And you don't really believe Bolivia's problems have anything to do with religion, do you?

I'll post again if I have time about medieval/renaissance christianity, and the larger issue, but I think with some exceptions (the Inquisition) the increased violence (yes, including much of the North American invasion) was also a result of pulling away from religion.

Posts: 308 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I love how only one person has even addressed the central point of OSC essay.
Do you consider his central point to be "Muslims should self-police" or "we should deny the right of religious expression to Muslims until they have changed their religion to suit our needs?"
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The second one, only modified to only deny TAX EXEMPT status where religious expression does not condemn murdering unbelievers and "apostates." They should remain free to preach hate, it is just my belief that they should not be given a tax break for doing so.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, we should remove tax exempt status from christian sects that have preachers who spew hate? OR are we just going to confine this to islam? Or only hate that you disagree with ?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lobo
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Lobo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Christians hate the sin but love the sinner...the preachers are not advocating murder. Islam hates the sin and kills the sinner.

Big difference.

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, for now he's saying just those religious groups that preach that you should kill anyone who leaves their religion. It seems obvious that there's nothing redeeming in such a view. Besides, they'll still be allowed to preach it; they just won't be able to get the tax benefits of being a religious group.
Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Christians hate the sin but love the sinner...the preachers are not advocating murder. Islam hates the sin and kills the sinner.

Big difference."

See, here's the thing:

Note all christians love the sinner. Many don't.

Not all muslims kill the sinner. The vast majority (a far higher percentage then above) don't.

"Well, for now he's saying just those religious groups that preach that you should kill anyone who leaves their religion"

And how do we identify such a group? What percent of its members must advocate such a view?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would you propose Ev?
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would propose that either we have freedom of religion, or we don't. Go after PEOPLE who break the laws, not the religions. Once we start going after one religion, we have open season on all religions.

On the other hand, I see no reason why we should give tax exempt status to religions. My proposal would be to eliminate that exemption.

[ November 07, 2007, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Federal Government only punished Mormons who practiced plural marriage, and it punishes Muslims who kill apostates.

What's his beef?

That's the first time I've ever heard a Mormon call the revelation that the time for plural marriage on earth had ended "capitulation", by the way.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When was the last Muslim apostate killed in the US for being an apostate?

Point being, is this a solution (we can argue over its righteousness) in search of a problem?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn
Member
Member # 4220

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn   Email Eowyn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In most cases, though, religions -- particularly those with gods -- also offer a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.
Yeah, this is really kinda weird, considering that Buddhism is the only major religion I can think of that doesn't have a history of violence.

quote:
Second, Islam is not, strictly speaking, an organized religion. Since Islam has long asserted the right to govern and there is no separation of church and state, Muslim governments have been the only authorities that could determine what was and was not tolerable belief and practice. So in America and Europe, where Islam is not the governing power (yet), there is no authority that can say that this Muslim teacher or group is legitimate and that one is not.
I hadn't actually thought about this before, does anyone know how Muslim groups in the US and other non-Islamic countries are organized? Do they look to Islamic countries for religious leadership, is each one it's own unit, or what?

On the whole though, I think he's got a point.

Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"ince Islam has long asserted the right to govern and there is no separation of church and state, Muslim governments have been the only authorities that could determine what was and was not tolerable belief and practice."

Well, he might have some semblance of a point if this was at all historically accurate... but its not.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eowyn
Member
Member # 4220

 - posted      Profile for Eowyn   Email Eowyn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wouldn't know about historically accurate, but my question still stands--how is the religion organized when it isn't state-dictated?
Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In most cases, though, religions -- particularly those with gods -- also offer a mitigating force against violence and barbarity.

Yeah, this is really kinda weird, considering that Buddhism is the only major religion I can think of that doesn't have a history of violence.

Biased though I am, Buddhists do seem to walk the walk better than most major religions, though great saints appear in all faiths. Buddhism is not strictly speaking pacifistic, however. Self-immolation is certainly a form of violence, but has been used very deliberately by Buddhists in rare circumstances as an act of compassion. And then there are the cases where the teachings are subverted for ends which aren't at all in harmony with the Buddhadharma:

When a person has practiced the pacifying meditation of shamatha (in tibetan: shine), they develop a very strong equinimity of mind. Its not exactly the goal of the practice, more like a fringe benefit: a mind that is calm, at peace, temporarily free from fear and desire. Ideally, such a state is used to investigate otherwise difficult realities like impermanence and selflessness. Sounds pretty benign, right? Well, during the second world war, pilots in Japan would train themselves to enter such a state, and then crash their planes into American battleships. Hardly the intent of Shakyamuni when he offered the teachings to sentient beings.

In general, Buddhist practice does make one less likely to act out of agression or hatred. That, I think, is why history shows Buddhists as being relatively peaceable compared to other religions. And despite OSC's rather unconsidered claim, Buddhists do not believe in a God, nor rely on one to restrain their negative impulses.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rallan
Member
Member # 1936

 - posted      Profile for Rallan   Email Rallan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
I love how only one person has even addressed the central point of OSC essay. Pick on, you nit pickers.

That'd be because the central point is really really old. It's just the same old apologetics being trotted out to refute the same old "religion make people do bad things" points. We can see both sides make the same points with the same lack of originality on forums across the internet every day.
Posts: 2570 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I wouldn't know about historically accurate, but my question still stands--how is the religion organized when it isn't state-dictated?"

By Mosque, kinda like judaism and some christian sects.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Islam is eternally in danger of a "The prophet wears no clothes!" moment which is why they deal with apostates so violently.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My point is that I don't think that putting restraints on their teaching in the states is going to do much to restrain the killing of faith leavers abroad. In the states we prosecute murderers regardless of their faith.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"On the other hand, I see no reason why we should give tax exempt status to religions. My proposal would be to eliminate that exemption."

I tend to agree, but there's a problem - the tax exemption is a great tool for keeping religions rom behaving in anti-constitutional, illegal and undesirable behavior. [Smile]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Inappropos, I suppose, but why did OSC refer to polyandry?. I thought the Mormons only had polygamy. Were there cases of Mormon women with multiple husbands? (and if not, why not [Smile] ).
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just read it -- this essay so improves my respect for OSC! And I have to agree that many folks here are deliberately missing the point out of spite. Even Richard, you know that a "..." is very convenient for leaving out the all important word "also" in the sentence you quoted. Having witnessed your rhetorical expertise, I have to conclude a little dishonesty is being perpetrated. If you thought this article is about Christian apologetics, you really need to read it again.
OSC rocks!
PS -- I have to wonder if he has a death wish though.

Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bombasto
Member
Member # 5217

 - posted      Profile for bombasto   Email bombasto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He does seem to have gotten his Poly's mixed up though :)
Posts: 74 | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bombasto, you seriously agree with these statements:

"No one could seriously argue that the conquistadors conquered because of their purported Christian faith."

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat??? The royal mandate of the voyages was EXPLICITLY to spread Christianity (among other objectives, but that prominently and as the sole moral cover)! This proves I was right and you were wrong - OSC is saner by far in his fiction, for he touches upon this explicitly in "Pastwatch" (which, full disclosure, I xlated into Hebrew).

"But the fact that in almost every place the Spanish conquered, large populations of Indians survived, can be credited to Christianity."

Again, since in many of the places the Spanish conquered up to 95% of the native population was wiped out - sometimes by pox-riddled blankets distributed by missionaries - and that in most places where the survival rate was much better it was due to slavery considerations, I can't see how anyone familiar with the facts can say or agree with these statements. Apologetics at its worst.

I do, by the way, admit that where efforts were made by Spaniards to prevent the genocide of the Native Americans, They were also led by clergy. This was before enlightenment [Smile]

[ November 09, 2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: RickyB ]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PF Pants
Member
Member # 5514

 - posted      Profile for PF Pants   Email PF Pants   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eowyn:

quote:
Second, Islam is not, strictly speaking, an organized religion. Since Islam has long asserted the right to govern and there is no separation of church and state, Muslim governments have been the only authorities that could determine what was and was not tolerable belief and practice. So in America and Europe, where Islam is not the governing power (yet), there is no authority that can say that this Muslim teacher or group is legitimate and that one is not.
I hadn't actually thought about this before, does anyone know how Muslim groups in the US and other non-Islamic countries are organized? Do they look to Islamic countries for religious leadership, is each one it's own unit, or what?

On the whole though, I think he's got a point. [/QB]

Can you imagine what would happen if Islam in the US organized itself. I think that it would make itself an instant target for Islamic extremists. Perhaps this is why they haven't done so already. Also, many are funded from other Islamic groups abroad, so they might lose support in that regard.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PF Pants
Member
Member # 5514

 - posted      Profile for PF Pants   Email PF Pants   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
Inappropos, I suppose, but why did OSC refer to polyandry?. I thought the Mormons only had polygamy. Were there cases of Mormon women with multiple husbands? (and if not, why not [Smile] ).

Having grown up in the Mormon church, I can say that I never heard of a woman having multiple husbands at the same time...it just doesn't fit the doctrine. I do know that women would frequently remarry into a polygamous family if their original husband passed away, but is that polyandry?
maybe he doesn't know what polyandry is?

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PF Pants
Member
Member # 5514

 - posted      Profile for PF Pants   Email PF Pants   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rallan:
quote:
Originally posted by Kent:
I love how only one person has even addressed the central point of OSC essay. Pick on, you nit pickers.

That'd be because the central point is really really old. It's just the same old apologetics being trotted out to refute the same old "religion make people do bad things" points. We can see both sides make the same points with the same lack of originality on forums across the internet every day.
I respectfully disagree. I think the main point of the essay was that religions which advocate violence should not be granted the same constitutional protections as other religious groups in the US.

The point about religion making people do bad things is really old, you're right. It's not the main point of his essay, though.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most religions in the US advocate violence under certain situations - like when Jesus or Mohammed and Issa come back
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Joel
New Member
Member # 5566

 - posted      Profile for Joel   Email Joel   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Straygaldwyr:
By a coincidence of parallel structure it turns out that monotheistic religions make better armies.

 I’d say rather that any large organizing principle makes for better armies. Consider: did the Roman Legions do better after the Empire became Christian?
 It’s just that monotheistic religions make for pretty good large-scale organizing principles.

Posts: 1 | Registered: Nov 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1