Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Public Prayer Ruling a Gnat Bite for Liberties in ICU

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Today's Supreme Court ruling allowing a town meeting to open with a Christian-leaning prayer underscored just how far economic liberty has declined in comparison to religious freedoms:

thenewversailles.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/public-prayer-ruling-a-gnat-bite-for-liberties-in-intensive-care-unit/

Wouldn't it be a wonderful problem to have if we were discussing whether politicians could merely suggest that Americans buy health insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's Supreme Court ruling allowing a town meeting to open with a Christian-leaning prayer underscored just how far economic liberty has declined in comparison to religious freedoms

Really? I thought it underscored just how little the political Right cares about the Constitution, and just how giant hypocrites they are every time they claim otherwise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I thought it underscored just how little the political Right cares about the Constitution, and just how giant hypocrites they are every time they claim otherwise.

 

That's not necessarily inconsistent with my point. It can be at the same time true that 1) many conservatives are hypocrites on religious liberties, and 2) the encroachment on our liberties is extremely minimal in this case.

 

I don't personally like this ruling or the town council's actions, but at the end of the day, nobody is being forced to do anything against their will and all New York citizens remain fully free to practice their own religions.

Edited by Robert Baratheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not necessarily inconsistent with my point.

My mistake, let me be more clear: I disagree that this ruling underscores anything whatsoever, except for Republican hypocrisy. I think anyone who tries to divert attention from that one and only important lesson that there is to be learned from this, is engaging in rationalization (also known as "spin").

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think anyone who tries to divert attention from that one and only important lesson that there is to be learned from this, is engaging in rationalization (also known as "spin"). 

 

I'm not a Republican, nor have I ever voted for one, nor do I verbally or financially support the party. Kind of shoots a hole in your bogus theory that I am engaging in "spin" to "divert attention" from the misdeeds of the GOP.

 

"One and only important lesson"? Really? There is only one important thing that anyone could possibly learn from this court decision, and you are the authority on what it is? Maybe you're being just a *tad* hyperbolic here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a Republican, nor have I ever voted for one, nor do I verbally or financially support the party. Kind of shoots a hole in your bogus theory that I am engaging in "spin" to "divert attention" from the misdeeds of the GOP.

You can be irrational just fine without belonging in the GOP.

"One and only important lesson"? Really? There is only one important thing that anyone could possibly learn from this court decision, and you are the authority on what it is?

No, the rules of logic are the authority on what it is. This ruling has no logical connection to economic policies. Any attempt to create one is irrational spin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're moving goalposts now. Without evidence, you accused me of trying to "divert attention" from "Republican hypocrisy" through rationalization (where do I mention a political party anywhere?). You obviously don't know what the word means because I don't rationalize the court decision anywhere (in fact, I disagree with it). When I pointed out I have no connection to the GOP or motive to "spin" for them, you shifted to an argument of irrationality, which was not the accusation - spinning for a political party was.

I've noticed a pattern of you jumping to extreme conclusions and being combative towards others just for the sake of being contrarian. Some would call this trolling, but I think it's just a compulsive need for you to prove how much purer and smarter you are than everyone else, i.e., the worst tendencies of objectivism.

As for your inane contention that my piece is "irrational" because there is "no connection" between religious liberties (the subject of the ruling) and economic liberties, I am making a comparison between the two to draw a contrast. Obviously there is *some* connection between the two because they are both types of liberties - that's a connection. Social and economic positions are often compared and contrasted and discussed together in these political dialogues. There is nothing "irrational" about comparing two separate but related concepts, and you shouldn't read in a sinister partisan motive where there is none.

Edited by Robert Baratheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed a pattern of you jumping to extreme conclusions and being combative towards others just for the sake of being contrarian. Some would call this trolling, but I think it's just a compulsive need for you to prove how much purer and smarter you are than everyone else, i.e., the worst tendencies of objectivism.

I don't know who's smarter, but I don't have to prove you wrong. You just did it for me, by psychoanalyzing me instead of defending your position.

I won't address your accusation, because it says nothing about me (you don't know me, and my posting history shows that I'm not being combative the majority of the time). I'm combative against a select few posters, who go from thread to thread pushing their dumb political agenda, or just post inarticulate nonsense. You happen to be one of them.

And, since you don't bother reading threads that aren't about your political agenda (and, more recently blog), you have no idea what most of my posts are about. Guess what: if you plan to keep starting a new thread every time you post on your blog, I'll keep debunking your nonsense in those threads. This is a discussion board, not a place for you to post spam hoping to move your blog up in google searches (and I say hoping, because you're doing it wrong - you need to post a functioning link for it to count - you left out the http:\\ part).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see - you don't psychoanalyze people - you just attribute partisan agendas to them based on absolutely nothing in their posts. And you aren't combative with everyone - just certain "dumb" posters who are pushing these imagined partisan agendas.

Lots of people post articles here and links to their newsletters or blogs. I'm not sure who you are to tell me what I should or should not post. If you don't like my topics, perhaps start your own instead of just being a magpie on others'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see - you don't psychoanalyze people - you just attribute partisan agendas to them based on absolutely nothing in their posts. And you aren't combative with everyone - just certain "dumb" posters who are pushing these imagined partisan agendas.

Lots of people post articles here and links to their newsletters or blogs. I'm not sure who you are to tell me what I should or should not post. If you don't like my topics, perhaps start your own instead of just being a magpie on others'.

Again: this is a discussion board. The purpose of threads is to ask questions or start discussion about certain subjects.

If you start a thread, expect a discussion. If you start five threads a day, all pushing the same tired right wing political agenda, expect five combative discussions. Not because I want to be a "magpie" on your threads, but because the purpose of threads is to start discussions, not to advertise your blog.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of threads is to ask questions or start discussion about certain subjects.

 

 

Which I did and is totally fine.

 

If you start five threads a day, all pushing the same tired right wing political agenda, expect five combative discussions.

 

 

I didn't start "five threads a day." Stop exaggerating. I started one thread in the past 24 hours, and one thread in the 24 hours before that.

 

What is my "right wing political agenda" specifically, and what is my motive for "diverting attention" from the Republican Party again? I can't keep straight all the motives you are attributing to me. Here I just thought I was a libertarian who doesn't support either major party - you know so  much better than I do what my true motives and agenda are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which I did and is totally fine.

 

 

I didn't start "five threads a day." Stop exaggerating. I started one thread in the past 24 hours, and one thread in the 24 hours before that.

 

What is my "right wing political agenda" specifically, and what is my motive for "diverting attention" from the Republican Party again? I can't keep straight all the motives you are attributing to me. Here I just thought I was a libertarian who doesn't support either major party - you know so  much better than I do what my true motives and agenda are.

You decided to blog about a blatant, shameless right wing violation of the US Constitution, and the only thing you had to say about it is that Liberals are worse.

Of course you're a right wing shill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? The "only thing" I had to say about it is that "Liberals are worse"? Let's examine your newest dubious claim, pulled yet again from thin air.

Please show me where I used the word liberal, or even any synonym for the word liberal, anywhere in my post. You can't because I didn't.

What I did say is that, while both are regrettable, erosion of economic liberties has been far more severe in America than erosion of religious liberties. I didn't blame this erosion of economic liberties on liberals or Democrats, or anybody specific for that matter, and since you didn't ask like a reasonable person would, yes, I do blame both sides for it.

In summary, you failed at reading comprehension and made up a bunch of crap that appears nowhere in my post to insult and troll me. And you still haven't answered what specifically my "right wing aenda" involves because, again, it's a fabrication with no support in anything I posted.

Who specifically am I "shilling" for again, and why? More questions that will remain unanswered.

Edited by Robert Baratheon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I did say is that, while both are regrettable, erosion of economic liberties has been far more severe in America than erosion of religious liberties. I didn't blame this erosion of economic liberties on liberals or Democrats, or anybody specific for that matter, and since you didn't ask like a reasonable person would, yes, I do blame both sides for it.

I assume that you are aware enough of your surroundings to realize that Democrats are more to blame for the erosion of economic freedom than Republicans, and that Republicans are more to blame for the imposition of religious values on individuals, than Democrats. If you don't believe that, please correct me. But I think you do.

So, with that out of the way, claiming that economic liberties are more eroded than social ones is the same as claiming that Democrats are worse than Republicans. And you're wrong no matter how you phrase it. The imposition of religious morality (in the form of drug prohibition, regulating sex and relationships between consenting adults, regulating broadcasting and publications, etc.) is easily as gross an erosion of freedom as taxes and business regulations. The only difference is that the economic thugs are yet to start their legislative day with a reading of Marx. The same can't be said for the religious thugs you're holding in higher regard.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither party is good in either the social or economic realm. I suppose if we're going to get into partisan politics, which enters into my post nowhere, then I would pick Republicans over Democrats on economic liberties if I had to, which I don't and didn't. But you are the one pushing that unnecessary element into the discussion, not me, and it isn't even relevant to my point. If the parties changed platforms tomorrow, my post would stay exactly as its written - it wouldn't flip to then favor the GOP wherever they fell on the topic.

Of course taxes are a greater burden than religious morality in this country. You work five months a year just to fund the government. That's not even in the same galaxy as pot or prostitution being illegal, both of which I disagree with, but in the end affect our day to day lives very little. As I said, I don't want prayer in public meetings, but it is nothing except a minor annoyance and I remain free to practice any religion I choose whereas I do not control how my money is spent. That much is fact.

I'm still waiting to hear what my "right wing agenda" consists of in your mind, or what my motive is for "shilling" for the GOP (shouldn't I be getting paid if that's the case?) You won't ever answer though, because you know these accusations have no basis in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is a wee bit contentious :)

But, below the question of whether labeling a particular violation of rights as "bad but very minor" (my paraphrase) makes one a shill for the violator, is the issue of how one judges various violations.

... claiming that economic liberties are more eroded than social ones is the same as claiming that Democrats are worse than Republicans.

Again, there are two levels of premises here.

Here's my question then: in the U.S. are economic liberties more eroded than social ones, or vice versa, or can't we tell, or are they just too intermingled?

I think there are people on the right and the left who want too see far worse violations of rights than we have today. However, what about today? Have violators of economic rights been more or less successful than violators of social rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question then: in the U.S. are economic liberties more eroded than social ones, or vice versa, or can't we tell, or are they just too intermingled?

Loss of freedom can't really be measured or compared, directly, I don't think. It's difficult to objectively compare Microsoft having to stop developing software the way they see fit to a kid being arrested for drug posession. There just isn't an objective standard. We can't just say "20 years in prison = 750 things Bill Gates never had the chance to do", that would be pretty arbitrary.

The best we could do is look at the effects of both kinds of abuses, on the lives of individuals (while counting each individual life as having equal value).

With that in mind, measuring the full effects of economic control and taxation would still be pretty speculative, I'm sure you agree. It's basically "what could've been". Meanwhile, religious moralizing impacts the lives of individuals in a very direct and dramatic way. We can look at the millions of lives impacted by the government depriving them of the protection of the law, the right to contract, not to mention their freedom, simply because they are in a trade deemed immoral, or using a substance deemed immoral. And this is just by sticking to the laws motivated by religion, before we even look at the consequences of the American Right's other defining caracteristic, chauvinism.

I don't dispute the fact that economic controls and wealth redistribution have a significant impact on everyone, but the illegitimate social laws destroy millions of lives in a manner that is inescapable to even the shallowest of observers. It would take some serious evidence before I could accept the proposition that economic controls have hurt more people, and in worse ways. Not that it's out of the question. But that still wouldn't make me wrong for taking exception to the dismissive tone in the thread title, downplaying the devastating effects of religious influence in American politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case this argument pops up (I find that it usually does, when arguing with conservatives): the First Amendment is not just about religious freedom, it is about the separation of church and state. Jefferson and Madison's careers are both inextricably linked to the goal of separating church and state. That is where their main interest lay, to preserve rationality in government, not in protecting some witch doctor's right to spew his nonsense. Jefferson, at one point in his career, even went as far as suggesting that clergy should be banned from running for public office (position which he later retracted).

The biggest crime the Catholic Church ever committed wasn't against Martin Luther and his bunch, it was against Galileo Galilei. It wasn't a violation of "religious freedom", it was a violation of the right to be rational and an independent thinker.

That is the crime the founders wished to prevent a repeat of first and foremost, with the First Amendment. True, legislators putting their hands together in prayer before they legislate doesn't violate anyone's religious freedom. But it means that it's OK to disregard the laws of logic and reality by having a conversation with an imaginary God, while performing the functions of their government office. It's an official proclamation that Reason is no longer the standard by which they aim to function when performing their jobs. If that doesn't scare you, Obama shouldn't either. At least Obama is only disregarding the Constitution, not reality as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loss of freedom can't really be measured or compared, directly

 

 

Fairly straightforward to compare, actually. Just give someone the option of which freedom they would rather gain or lose, and you have your answer of which is a worse injustice against them. To measure, we could use the old economist's trick of asking how much they would pay to not lose the freedom or have it returned to them. It's not a perfect measure, but it could provide some insight.

 

The fact is, give someone the option of not paying any taxes for the rest of their life and there is no amount of drug laws, prostitution laws, or prayers in public meetings that will ever stack up against that opportunity. The person will pick not paying taxes, guaranteed, every time because the economic loss of freedom has such a more severe, direct, and harmful impact on actual everyday lives.

 

It's also worth mentioning that my post had little to do with "religious influence" in America, which is a far broader (and more vague) topic. I spoke specifically and only about "religious freedom" in America, which is still very much intact by any meaningful measure. People remain almost totally free to practice their own religions, with only the most minimal and common-sense restrictions on free observance. That was the point I made in my original post.

 

Conspiracy theories and accusations aside, I'm not a conservative or a theist, so we'd have to ask one of each to get their perspectives on these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loss of freedom can't really be measured or compared, directly, I don't think.

It's true, there's no unit of measure. I reckon one can still compare one violation against another, as Robert suggests, but one still needs a standard for doing so.

I think there is an implicit standard used by those who rate economic violations worse. It is something like a "rational man" standard (in the eyes of the person making the judgement). Thus, some types of religion-based violations -- drugs and prostitution -- can be seen as "a rational person is not losing important values if those are disallowed". So, while millions might be in jail for drug-dealing, the attitude is: "They had enough rational choices within what is permitted".

Homosexuality is different. If it is made criminal it is analogous to slavery: i.e. a certain segment of the population is discriminated against seriously, even while other people are free to do the same things prohibited to the persecuted group. However, in the U.S. homosexuality is not criminal, and is increasingly socially-acceptable too. The remnant rights being violated -- e.g. not being allowed to enter into a marriage-type contract -- are a far cry from being jailed for sodomy. Here too, the trend in the U.S. is toward rights.

 

Abortion is the one area where the religious right have had continuing intellectual and political success. If a woman is disallowed from having an abortion, that is likely life-altering. I believe this will remain as a serious threat.

 

The creationists have had some success in some states. If they can succeed, they represent a widespread threat because they attack epistemology and the education. It is not widespread yet. If a kook like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry becomes president they might try pushing it, but it won't be easy.

 

Finally, there are issues like prayer-in-school and public-funded religious displays (the ten commandments in a court-house or a Christmas scene in town-hall). In scale, these are smaller. Also, here too, the religious side does keep losing ground -- despite this particular court-case -- over the longer run.

 

There's no doubt that many religious folk want to see far more, but they'd have a hard time getting away with much. Still, SCOTUS judges like Scalia are a dangerous threat because of their decidedly religious and traditionalist approach to legal reasoning. I do hope Ginsburg will retire soon and allow Obama to choose a young replacement, because if the next president is GOP, the SCOTUS could shift toward religion and traditionalism for a long while. The last thing we want is an increasing belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. 

 

Finally, there is the anti-immigration stance, which is mostly a restriction on economic freedom, but is motivated by both economic-based statism and social/nationalistic/xenophobic statism. Currently, the latter is dominant and denies rights to millions. probably the most widespread human-rights violation of people trying to pursue pretty rational values. 

 

So, that's a survey of rights-violations from the "religious statists". Do you think I've missed something, or under-played some aspect?

 

The fact is, give someone the option of not paying any taxes for the rest of their life and there is no amount of drug laws, prostitution laws, or prayers in public meetings that will ever stack up against that opportunity.

That's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison though. Zero tax is a huge step. Turning the tables: would you choose to pay zero taxes if you had to be a fully-functioning and publicly-enthusiastic member of a intensely religious where the songs you sing, the books you read, the pictures you can see, the food you eat, the clothes you can wear, are all strictly governed by a group of priests.

So, instead of asking about zero taxes, I think you should frame your question thus: "would you be willing to see an increase in drug-laws, prostitution laws, or prayers in public school... if you could get a tax-cut in return?" I think the answer is less clear-cut. Consider it another way: would you be willing to pay a little extra tax if it meant most drugs were made legal for most adults?

 

Further, these things (all the religious/social violations) are tied together and motivated by an underlying philosophy. So, in reality, a loosening or tightening would come across a broad field. 

 

 

BTW, on the topic of this particular case, the SCOTUS Blog has a typically-good summary here.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last thing we want is an increasing belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. 

 

 

I don't believe any of the justices have said anything to that effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Finally, there is the anti-immigration stance, which is mostly a restriction on economic freedom, but is motivated by both economic-based statism and social/nationalistic/xenophobic statism. 

 

 

"Anti-immigration" is a progressive meme and I think it's fundamentally dishonest. In my experience, those who strongly oppose illegal immigration tend to be very explicit on the point that they welcome legal immigration. Those aren't even close to my own reasons for opposing illegal immigration. I just don't want them getting free public benefits, and it's as simple as that. Remove the welfare state and I'd be all for open borders. Xenophobia doesn't even enter into the picture for me. We're all descendants of immigrants - whatevs.

 

That's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison though. Zero tax is a huge step. Turning the tables: would you choose to pay zero taxes if you had to be a fully-functioning and publicly-enthusiastic member of a intensely religious where the songs you sing, the books you read, the pictures you can see, the food you eat, the clothes you can wear, are all strictly governed by a group of priests.

 

 

My entire point was that economic liberties have already been eroded further than religious liberties, so the purpose of the thought experiment was to underscore that people implicitly, if not explicitly, recognize that they have been hurt more by economic policies than religious policies, and even the "religiously influenced" social policies Nicky listed.

 

I think your counterexample is apples-to-oranges because it moves the conversation into abstractions and things that have not happened and probably never will. I don't dispute that there "could" be social policies enacted more damaging than current economic policies, but that's not the situation before us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe any of the justices have said anything to that effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Of the SCOTUS justices, Scalia is the most religious. Of course, he says explicitly that he does not let his religious views enter into his judgments. I suggest you look into his views on religion and tradition. The danger lies in the fact that more die-hard religiously-leaning republicans consider him the best SCOTUS justice there: a prototype for new ones.

"Anti-immigration" is a progressive meme and I think it's fundamentally dishonest. In my experience, those who strongly oppose illegal immigration tend to be very explicit on the point that they welcome legal immigration. Those aren't even close to my own reasons for opposing illegal immigration. I just don't want them getting free public benefits, and it's as simple as that. Remove the welfare state and I'd be all for open borders. Xenophobia doesn't even enter into the picture for me. We're all descendants of immigrants - whatevs.

While I disagree about the welfare-immigration link, I empathize with the argument and can see where people are coming from. However, that is very different from the "illegal vs legal" immigration argument. That is really a GOP meme: an anti-intellectual approach wherein they are arguing for rule-of-law regardless of how good or bad the law is. But, this topic has been gone over elsewhere on the forum, over and over.

More generally: do not under-estimate the evil ideas held as truths by ordinary-seeming voters from both parties. Huge masses of them, who are not very politically active, still hold ideas that they absorb uncritically from partisan sources. There are millions of such Republicans who think the U.S. was founded as a Christian country; more, that it was actually a God-sent promised land give in covenant to those who wanted to escape the evils of Europe and move to a place they can practice their religion. A rational person would find it difficult to believe in the existence of such folk, but they're all around you, and normal in most ways. [Dems too, but not talking about them now.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is an implicit standard used by those who rate economic violations worse. It is something like a "rational man" standard (in the eyes of the person making the judgement). Thus, some types of religion-based violations -- drugs and prostitution -- can be seen as "a rational person is not losing important values if those are disallowed". So, while millions might be in jail for drug-dealing, the attitude is: "They had enough rational choices within what is permitted".

Saying that "the government isn't to blame for drug dealers/users being in jail" is the logical equivalent of saying "it is not immoral for the government to ban drugs".

If one accepts that doing drugs is a right, then one cannot blame the victims of drug laws for their imprisonment. One has to blame the people who initiate force: the government. It's the same exact reasoning as when you blame the rapist for the rape of a scantily clad drunk girl taking a stroll through a bad neighborhood, at night.

So, whether the victims' choice to trade/do drugs was rational or not, makes no difference: the government, as the initiator of force, is still morally responsible for their imprisonment. Even if "they should've known better".

On the other hand, if one rejects the suggestion that individual rights are the primary guiding principle of politics, then the argument, for all liberties, becomes utilitarian/based in personal morality. Just as a right winger can argue that drugs are bad for you so whatever we do to you for using them is your fault, a leftist can say that 1. some economic controls, in some situations, will lead to a better end result or 2. being altruistic is the rational thing to do, therefor there's nothing wrong with rights violating regulations or wealth redistribution, and, even if anything goes wrong, it's the industrialists who are to blame for being stupid/selfish, and refusing to work for the common good.

The standard I used wasn't a utilitarian standard. It was an individual rights based standard, which attempted to compare the consequences of violating individual rights objectively, by treating each person as an individual of equal worth, with a right to choose his own values. This other standard circumvents rights (and individualism) altogether, and just uses "morality from the perspective of the speaker". That's a rejection of the fundamentals of Objectivist philosophy. Even if the speaker is rationally selfish.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is, give someone the option of not paying any taxes for the rest of their life and there is no amount of drug laws, prostitution laws, or prayers in public meetings that will ever stack up against that opportunity.

If the standard of value, for EVERYONE, is YOUR personal opinion, then sure, you're right.

On the other hand, if the standard of value for each individual is THEIR personal opinion, then you couldn't be more wrong: millions more risk jailtime for drugs, than they do for tax evasion. That's because they value the freedom to deal or do drugs more than they value the freedom to keep all their money.

So, what's it gonna be: are you an Objectivist, willing to allow each person to choose their values (and judge the harm done by public policy accordingly: meaning that when their choices clash with rights violating public policy, the government is to blame for the consequences, not the individual making the illegal choice), or are you a right wing totalitarian, looking to impose your own values on everyone?

It's also worth mentioning that my post had little to do with "religious influence" in America, which is a far broader (and more vague) topic. I spoke specifically and only about "religious freedom" in America

No, you spoke about liberty in general. You made the false assumption that the only way in which this ruling affects liberty is through its effect on religious liberty, and then proceeded to claim that therefor, this ruling's effect on liberty is the equivalent of a gnat bite, while other rulings, promoted by Democrats, put liberty into the ICU.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not necessarily inconsistent with my point. It can be at the same time true that 1) many conservatives are hypocrites on religious liberties, and 2) the encroachment on our liberties is extremely minimal in this case.

 

I don't personally like this ruling or the town council's actions, but at the end of the day, nobody is being forced to do anything against their will and all New York citizens remain fully free to practice their own religions.

 

Ok, If I read you correctly, you are claiming that no rights are violated by this action.  Is that what you are saying?  Does that mean this action is justified within the context of Objectivism?

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...