Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
MisterSwig

Here Come The Christians!

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

If I were the professor I would have hit back.

Just to be clear, I'm under the impression that the story is fictional. I'm not saying you didn't know that, but it occured to me that it might not be clear to everyone who reads it. I suppose it could be true, but I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evangelical Billy Graham is preaching in my neck of the woods--at the Rose Bowl. His four-day L.A. crusade started here last night before an audience of 45,000 people. It's simply amazing to me that this physically declining Christian preacher can fill up a major event venue in a blue state for four days straight!

Graham Returns Evangelism To Los Angeles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evangelical Billy Graham is preaching in my neck of the woods--at the Rose Bowl. His four-day L.A. crusade started here last night before an audience of 45,000 people. It's simply amazing to me that this physically declining Christian preacher can fill up a major event venue in a blue state for four days straight!

A sucker born every minute. Actually, that's a pretty old saying. Due to the increasing birth rate, it's probably more like "50 suckers born every minute" now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evangelical Billy Graham is preaching in my neck of the woods--at the Rose Bowl. His four-day L.A. crusade started here last night before an audience of 45,000 people. It's simply amazing to me that this physically declining Christian preacher can fill up a major event venue in a blue state for four days straight!

Graham Returns Evangelism To Los Angeles

A quick follow-up to my earlier post on Billy Graham ...

He ended up setting a Rose Bowl attendance record on Saturday for a non-sporting event. In total, about 312,500 people attended over the four-day event.

I remember a long time ago when my father watched Billy Graham on television. I didn't think much of it at the time. I was young and still religious myself. To me, Graham was just another preacher on TV.

Then a few months ago I saw my father reading a book by Billy Graham. I started wondering why my dad, who never goes to church, dislikes Rush Limbaugh, and voted for John Kerry, would be reading Billy Graham. Well, I soon found out that Billy Graham is above politics. He is a god of the evangelical movement in America. He brings Republicans and Democrats together through the sheer force of religion.

While sports fans were throwing beer on basketball players this weekend, Billy Graham was creating evangelicals.

Billy Graham Wraps Up Historic Crusade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps some of you are aware of what happened on Sean Hannity's Jan. 17 cable show. I read a transcript of it only this morning. Hannity interviewed Norma McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe), whose famous 1973 Supreme Court case (Roe v. Wade) led to the legalization of abortion. She has since been "saved by the Blood of the Lamb through Jesus Christ," and she told Hannity that she will now be submitting a brief to the Supreme Court "begging" them to overturn her previous case and help make abortion illegal again.

Abortion is an important political fight because the key issues at hand are the definition of a human being and the source of individual rights. If Christians succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, they will have more firmly brainwashed Americans into believing that we are God-made and God-ruled, and that it's thus our duty to do what the representatives of God tell us to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the creator of this thread, I disapprove of the direction it is taking. I will gladly debate atheist anti-abortionists ... on a different thread. But this thread is about the rise of Christianity--not the arguments of atheist anti-abortionists.

Can a moderator please split this thread and begin a new one about Sherlock's position? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moderator's Note: At MisterSwig's request, I have moved the posts related to the abortion issue to an older thread aptly titled, The Abortion Issue.

Much of the ground that is being covered now has already been covered in that thread so I would strongly suggest those that aren't already familiar with that thread to review it before posting further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hannity interviewed Norma McCorvey (AKA Jane Roe), whose famous 1973 Supreme Court case (Roe v. Wade) led to the legalization of abortion. She has since been "saved by the Blood of the Lamb through Jesus Christ," and she told Hannity that she will now be submitting a brief to the Supreme Court "begging" them to overturn her previous case and help make abortion illegal again.

Abortion is an important political fight because the key issues at hand are the definition of a human being and the source of individual rights. If Christians succeed in overturning Roe v. Wade, they will have more firmly brainwashed Americans into believing that we are God-made and God-ruled, and that it's thus our duty to do what the representatives of God tell us to do.

That makes me sick. That's possibly the most disgusting thing I've seen in a long time. She now feels *guilt* that other women have supposedly committed suicide directly because of their abortions and so she is going to impose that guilt on everyone in an even greater degree by now saying she was wrong :lol:

Good old Christian guilt. I saw them pushing this issue all over the place, these Christian groups catering to the guilt and feeding it and using it to slip the noose and now they they are hanging her by it. It's their(Christians) single greatest weapon. Guilt and Shame, and how eagerly women esp take it upon themselves, and how eagerly it is hoisted upon them.

My friend in highschool became "born again" and he said something very similar to her quote

MCCORVEY: I don't have to deal with it anymore. I've been saved by the Blood of the Lamb through Jesus Christ, and so I'm just here.

which that time and this made my blood run cold. By being *saved* they turn over the rights to their own self. They literally hand over all responsibilty to the priest or whoever professes to know God's will and absolve themselves of it entirely. That process in and of itself, is evil, and so is anyone who encourages it, and especially those who perform it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Observe three concrete examples of the religious conservatives Peikoff sees as a threat: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Ann Coulter. None of them advocate theocracy or anything approaching it. 90% of the time they base their political opinions on FACTS an Objectivist would agree with and most of the time their ultimate goals are the same as ours.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=50565

Do many people still believe that Objectivists share common values and goals with religious conservatives?

Hannity's ultimate goal is to see abortion banned. He has written, in his first book, that abortion is "the most important issue" to him.

After reading Hannity's first book, I can't find one ultimate goal that Objectivists share with him. For more of my views on Hannity, read my new paper Sean Hannity and the Tactics of the Enemy.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do many people still believe that Objectivists share common values and goals with religious conservatives?

Hannity's ultimate goal is to see abortion banned. He has written, in his first book, that abortion is "the most important issue" to him.

After reading Hannity's first book, I can't find one ultimate goal that Objectivists share with him. For more of my views on Hannity, read my new paper Sean Hannity and the Tactics of the Enemy.

I have never been able to tolerate Hannity from the first time I saw him. Admittedly, this was more of an emotional reaction but I thought the way in which he carried on on Hannity & Colmes was so insulting and crude that regardless of whether what he says may have elements of truth, it's worthless coming out of his mouth.

But in answer to your question, I would say that I've never felt so ideologically alone. With few exceptions the religious conservatives were united in their evil purpose and willing to use most means at their disposal to stop justice from being done. If the whole Schiavo affair is a sign of things to come then things are looking ominous indeed. As I wrote here, I expected to have regrets voting for Bush and unfortunately I'm seeing them come true and worse than that, Bush is looking more religious by the minute...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Until recently I regularly listened to conservative talk radio, but with the recent Schiavo circus and now the posts death listening to it almost makes me physically sick. There needs to be an Objectivist host, I think the market is ready for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. Until recently I regularly listened to conservative talk radio, but with the recent Schiavo circus and now the posts death listening to it almost makes me physically sick. There needs to be an Objectivist host, I think the market is ready for it.

Well, a few years back we had Dr. Peikoff, followed by Andrew Lewis, as well as Prodos in Australia, Dr. Hurd and Dr. Kenner. Of these, only Dr. Kenner is still on a regular radio show. There are some strong sympathizers out there -- The Peter Mac show that regularly interviews ARI people is one but judging by the number of calls the show gets, it can't be very popular.

I also gave up on Conservative talk a while back. Nevertheless, I would be more pessimistic about the prospects of a revival in Objectivist radio but perhaps over time the situation will improve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seemed like the best thread to post this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8113152/

I found this passage particularly alarming:

"Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith is important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God. Almost 40 percent said religious leaders should try to sway policymakers . . . "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I found this passage particularly alarming:

"Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith is important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God. Almost 40 percent said religious leaders should try to sway policymakers . . . "

Yes, that passage by itself is alarming, but the article you referenced is more puzzling than alarming.

Here are the questions that arise for me, after reading the article:

1. Are the results of this poll, for the U. S., basically different than they would have been in the early decades of this country's history, or, for that matter, before the revolution itself?

2. Would I rather live in the U. S. today, with its supposedly higher religiosity, or in Western Europe, with its nihilistic atheism?

3. Environmentalism is a religion, but did the pollsters take that into account, especially in Western Europe where that religion is most active? How many Europeans would say that environmentalist leaders should not try to influence members of the European parliament?

All things considered, I do not see religion as being more powerful today than it was 50 years ago (when I was a 10-year old eyewitness), or 100 or 500 or 1000 years ago (based on reading history). If anything, today's religious upsurge, if that is what it is, is refreshing. Now those of us who advocate a philosophy of reason can brush aside the supposedly secularist collectivism of the 20th Century and get back to dealing with our traditional enemies -- fideism, skepticism, and other forms of emotionalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Environmentalism is a religion . . .

I've noticed in other posts of yours there is something you do quite frequently. You ask people who pose a question why they pose it, and specifically, why that issue is important to their life. I really like this approach, which suggests that one should set priorities for what questions he needs to answer. I regretfully admit that I hadn't realized how important that could be until very recently, but I am glad to have learned from what your questions imply.

One of the issues I realized I need to do extensive study on is epistemology. One specific problem is that I don't have a structured approach and understanding of formulating definitions. So, even though I know epistemology is thoroughly covered elsewhere on this forum, since your claim above was raised in this thread, I'd like to respond to it in this thread.

Why is environmentalism a religion? What is environmentalism, and what is religion? How did you apply definitional procedures to arrive at these definitions?

Best,

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really like this approach, which suggests that one should set priorities for what questions he needs to answer.

Yes, I have multiple motives for asking a thread-starter why he is asking his question. One motive is to get clarification through clearer context. This is where the thread-starter is "coming from." A second motive is to help me decide whether or not this person is (1) a sophisticated troll, (2) hopelessly rationalistic, or (3) objectively seeking a solution to a problem that must be solved on the road to happiness.

Asking questions about borderline cases, about highly unlikely scenarios, or about issues that are not personally important to the asker -- all these are often symptoms of either trolling (that is, posting with a malicious intent) or rationalism (a philosophical "disease" from which I suffered for decades). The trolls should be banned, once detected. The rationalists need to be exposed to the idea that all values in life are personal values. (Of those, the ones we share with all others are philosophical values.) Rationalists detach discussions of fact and value from their own lives. One tell-tale sign is when the asker says he is asking because he is "just curious," that is, he has no motive connected to his hierarchy of values.

One of the issues I realized I need to do extensive study on is epistemology.  One specific problem is that I don't have a structured approach and understanding of formulating definitions.
The place to start is a very slow, abstract-integrative reading of Ch. 5, "Definitions," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Another source you might try is enrolling in Jean Moroney Binswanger's course on definitions. I have not taken it. But you might investigate it. Also, you might search here for a thread on forming definitions, and if there isn't one, you might start one by inviting suggestions for how one can form one's own definitions, from scratch.

Why is environmentalism a religion?  What is environmentalism, and what is religion?

Years ago I wrote an essay on Environmentalism as religion, for the Objectivism Study Group. If I can find it, I will revise it and post it here in OO.net. Also, someone told me that Peter Schwartz gave a lecture, now on tape, on the same subject. I am certain his is superior. He is a very clear thinker who has not received the attention his work deserves. (His style is very low key.) You might look in the Ayn Rand Bookstore for such a lecture.

In short-form, here is why I think environmentalism is a religion. I am offering you my personal definition. I make no claim to it being a philosophical, that is, socially objective, definition -- one that is "valid for all men ... according to the relevant knowledge available at that stage of mankind's development". (IOE, p. 46, but see also see p. 74 for a philosopher's role in maintaining order in knowledge, partly through working with key definitions.)

First, a religion, as Ayn Rand has noted (Ayn Rand Lexicon, "Religion," p. 411), is a primitive ("early") form of philosophy. It answers at least the three most important philosophical questions: What exists? How do I know? What should I do about it? (And these questions, of course, affect religious individuals' politics and esthetics too.)

The answer to the first is usually God or gods (with one usually being supreme) and their creatures (creations). The answer to the second is "faith" (or some other form of emotionalism), with a grudging acceptance of reason for strictly limited uses. The answer to the third is to live according to God's way. Thus you have a primitive metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

I know from talking to environmentalists personally, and from philosophically detecting and essentializing their myriad responses, that they believe that Gaia (the Earth Goddess, a.k.a The Earth, or The Environment) is the cause of everything.

How do environmentalists know that? Ultimately the answer I usually get is a description of a mystical experience: Standing alone among giant trees and feeling "at one" with nature. In other words, the environmentalists essentially say, I know because I feel it.

What should we do about Gaia's creation? Live as the other creatures do: without taking more than our "fair share" of nature.

Of course, many environmentalists are like many Christians -- mixed cases or inconsistent or self-contradictory. Like Christians, few environmentalists attempt to practice their principles consistently.

How did you apply definitional procedures to arrive at these definitions?

In short-form: Look around in the area you are puzzled about. Essentialize. Identify commonality nearest to your area of interest (this is the genus, here religion), and distinguish your object of interest from the other objects in the same group (this establishes the differentia, in this case a pantheistic nature god as cause).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That sounds pretty nutty.

What about the kooks who are trying to form an "objectivist/libertarian" Utopia by taking over the state of New Hampshire http://www.freestateproject.org/

I spent a few minutes over there and read this link out of curiousity:

http://www.freestateproject.org/news/items/EthanNappen/

Well, the governor of NJ must not have read a word of Anthem, because the boy who submitted the letter quoted verbatim for three of the four paragraphs of his letter to "Ms. Ayn Rand" directly from a late chapter in <I>Anthem</i>. How ignorance begets rewards for cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evangelist Pat Robertson has received much media attention this year by claiming to know God’s plan for hurting people and causing widespread devastation. You might recall that in January he said that God caused Ariel Sharon to have a heart attack as punishment for dividing the holy land. And now he is spouting more religious mumbo-jumbo, insisting that God told him we would have really bad weather this year.

If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms … there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest.

Clearly Pat Robertson is a complete idiot. I mean, why couldn't he hear the Lord clearly? Was God talking too softly?

Robertson is an utter moron. So why does the mass media give him a spotlight every time he says something stupid on his little religious show? It's not like he bombed an abortion clinic or molested a choirboy. Do CNN and FOX believe that entertaining Robertson's insanity is newsworthy? I think they do.

It seems that the popular media, whether they agree with Robertson or not, is responding to the rise of Christian culture. They are probably receiving increased demands for and interest in more coverage of religious news.

It's not a good sign when the popular media tailors so much of its content to the seemingly insignificant, crystal ball-like ravings of the most radical Christian elements in our culture.

Edited by MisterSwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may remember Senator Barack Obama, who gained national fame when he delivered his famous keynote speech "The Audacity of Hope" at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. What you may not know, however, is that Obama has been actively wooing evangelical hearts in preparation for a potential run for the Presidency in 2008. On December 1st he teamed up with his friend Rick Warren, Christian superstar author of The Purpose Driven Life, to give a speech on AIDS and the Church at Warren's megachurch in Lake Forest, California. Nicole Russell has written an article at the American Thinker concerning Obama's pursuit of evangelical love. She observes that:

With his attendance at Rick Warren‘s church ... Obama has begun to align himself with an important base of voters to gain what conservatives lost this last year. Already lauded by some prominent evangelical publications for his outstanding "Christian faith" and a person Rick Warren called a "good friend" and a someone he'd like to work with on important issues, Obama is in perfect position, if he can keep the momentum, to use an unusual strategy for political gain.

Obama's particular desire to be liked by the evangelicals is not going to be surprising to those who accept the fact that religion is on the rise in America. Obama and other Democrats are desperately trying to exploit any common ground that they have with the approximately 100 million evangelicals that live in America. Evangelicals want massive faith-based sacrifice--across the board. They want massive sacrifice abroad and massive sacrifice at home. So, Obama is seeking ways to give it to them--Democrat style:

Now let me say this - I think that President Bush and this past Congress should be applauded for the resources they have contributed to the fight against HIV and AIDS. Through our country's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the United States will have contributed more than $15 billion over five years to combat HIV-AIDS overseas. And the Global Fund, with money from the United States and other countries, has done some heroic work to fight this disease. As I traveled throughout Africa this summer, I was proud of the tangible impact that all this money was having, often through coordinated efforts with the Centers for Disease Control, the State Department, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations.

So our first priority in Congress should be to reauthorize this program when it expires in 2008. Our second priority should be to reassess what's worked and what hasn't so that we're not wasting one dollar that could be saving someone's life.

But our third priority should be to actually boost our contribution to this effort. With all that is left to be done in this struggle - with all the other areas of the world that need our help - it's time for us to add at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic will soon reach crisis proportions.

Of course, given all the strains that have been placed on the U.S. budget, and given the extraordinary needs that we face here at home, it may be hard to find the money. But I believe we must try. I believe it will prove to be a wise investment. The list of reasons for us to care about AIDS is long. In an interconnected, globalized world, the ability of pandemics to spread to other countries and continents has never been easier or faster than it is today. There are also security implications, as countries whose populations and economies have been ravaged by AIDS become fertile breeding grounds for civil strife and even terror.

But the reason for us to step up our efforts can't simply be instrumental. There are more fundamental reasons to care. Reasons related to our own humanity. Reasons of the soul.

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

Race Against Time: World AIDS Day Speech

Despite his faith-based, Christian talk, Obama certainly has some difficult work ahead of him if he is going to lock down the evangelical vote. Many hardcore Christians are especially displeased with his pro-choice stance. But, Obama is a "good friend" of Rick Warren, and that is certainly a substantial point in the Senator's favor. Depending on who emerges as the Republican front-runners, Obama might actually end up being the best an evangelical could hope for in 2008.

More later, once I'm done reading Obama's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say hello to the Creation Museum which opened yesterday in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Museum mission statement

*Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation.

*This center will equip Christians to better evangelize the lost with a sense of urgency, through a combination of exhibits, research and educational presentations that uphold the inerrancy of the Bible.

*This center will also challenge visitors to receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and to accept the authority of the Bible by providing culturally relevant biblical and scientific answers from a biblical worldview.

Main theme

The Bible is true from Genesis to Revelation!

The $27 million Creation Museum is apparently the first of its kind. It is a "state-of-the-art 60,000 square foot museum [that] brings the pages of the Bible to life." It was designed by "a former Universal Studios exhibit director." The museum attracted 4,000 people on its opening day. And they expect 300,000 visitors a year. It's currently open 7 days a week. Adult admission is $19.95.

New York Times article on the museum.

A UK Guardian story.

BBC story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of government-run conferences that assist faith-based groups who apply for funding under the Faith-Based Initiative. From a recent article in the Catholic World News:

In a victory for US President George W. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled on June 25 [that it] dismissed an effort by an atheist group to stop federal funding for faith-based groups that provide social services.

In the case of Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation the court ruled that the atheist organization did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the White House program. Although in previous cases the US courts have allowed taxpayer challenges against programs approved by Congress, the Supreme Court noted that the faith-based initiative is the result of an executive order, spending funds that have already been allocated for approved social services.

Recent addition to the court, Justice Samuel Alito, wrote the majority opinion:

This is a lawsuit in which it was claimed that conferences held as part of the President's Faith-Based and Community Initiatives program violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because, among other things, President Bush and former Secretary of Education Paige gave speeches that used "religious imagery" and praised the efficacy of faith-based programs in delivering social services. The plaintiffs contend that they meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution because they pay federal taxes.

It has long been established, however, that the payment of taxes is generally not enough to establish standing to challenge an action taken by the Federal Government. In light of the size of the federal budget, it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm. And if every federal taxpayer could sue to challenge any Government expenditure, the federal courts would cease to function as courts of law and would be cast in the role of general complaint bureaus.

In essence, the court gave a big middle finger to anyone who would attempt to sue the government for funding religious groups.

Read the press release from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the group that brought the lawsuit:

The Foundation noted that all five voting against the right of federal taxpayers to sue in this case are practicing Roman Catholics. Roman Catholics, numbering five justices, now dominate the court. They are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Alito, who wrote the decision, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it is a complete fiction to argue that an unconstitutional federal expenditure causes an individual federal taxpayer any measurable economic harm.

Seriously. I think his definition of "unconstitutional" is skewed. And who is doing the measuring? Is he personally seeing to it that no "measurable economic harm" is done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, this boils my blood!

I seriously hate judge Alito now. The fundies have been trying to get the Supreme Court for years and now that they do, we all have to pay to spread Gospels message. :P:dough::dough:

Edited by Mammon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received this article from my university's Campus Atheists mailing list. It describes another injection of religion into the United States military.

An excerpt:

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade."

The whole article is worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...