Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Your views are out of step with modern society
August 1, 2011 11:47 PM   Subscribe

"... if children could go to the polls then perhaps Fred Nile, the leader of the Christian Democratic Party in NSW [New South Wales, Australia], wouldn't have the power that he has today." An 11-year old Charlie Fine writes about an issue that affects children across the Australian state of New South Wales.

- Background on how the 11-year old came to write the article, and how it got published.

- Bonus link: Ivar Benjamin Oesteboe - a young person in Norway, wrote an open letter to Anders Behring Breivik.
posted by vidur (58 comments total) 14 users marked this as a favorite

 
How do you even say something liek "we should not teach children ethics" out loud without hearing yourself and thinking "oh, wait..."
posted by adamt at 12:07 AM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]


More context on the background:

- schools have had scripture classes since forever; no constitutional separation of church & state.

- children of atheist parents have mostly been forced to do pointless busy work or sit in the library or something while religious kiddies get taught about the Bible / Koran / Bhagavad Gita / whatever.

- somebody has the good idea to teach atheist kids secular "ethics" instead.

- christian lobby complains that now their kids will be at some kind of disadvantage, because atheist kids are getting "extra" ethics classes that religious kids miss out on. Christian politicians try to stymie the ethics classes.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:08 AM on August 2, 2011 [22 favorites]


christian lobby complains that now their kids will be at some kind of disadvantage, because atheist kids are getting "extra" ethics classes that religious kids miss out on.

Um...isn't that implicitly admitting that the ethical content is missing in their scriptures? I agree!
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 12:18 AM on August 2, 2011 [20 favorites]


Kids like this make me a lot more optimistic for the future.
posted by corey flood at 12:30 AM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]


Such definition of purpose and dignity.

That young man will go far as he seems on a solid path.

He has the making a a man of conscience.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 12:54 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fred Nile is still alive?
posted by bright cold day at 1:02 AM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


Its pretty weird how prelevant religious education is here, especially since Australia is so outwardly un-religious we have an atheist PM. My atheist siblings go to Catholic school. My aunt, a nun, encouraged me to go to Mardi Gras Its kinda confusing.

I support ethics classes. I took a few at CTY (smart kid/nerd camp) growing, and I still remember things like Aristotelian ethics, utilitarianism, and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Hasn't done me much good though. Still better than the alternative.

This kid is my new hero, though this sounds ghost-written by an adult.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 1:12 AM on August 2, 2011


this sounds ghost-written by an adult.

Read the background link.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:19 AM on August 2, 2011


Fred Nile is still alive?

As long as he's still alive, there's still a change he'll be caught with his pants around his ankles in a park in Darlinghurst...
posted by Jimbob at 1:25 AM on August 2, 2011 [6 favorites]


I am a non-prostyletising atheist, so it annoyed the hell out of me (sorry) that my kids had to do colouring in if they didn't do scripture. When the trial started last year I investigated signing up as a teacher (I already do reading groups, etc.).
The course run by St James ethics centre to participate was two days long and included a weekday, and was a long way from home, which was more work than my non-belief felt justified.
This compares to zero qualifications for the religious instructors, (although some are 'official' clergy people).
My kids are variously doing buddhism, anglican and library in the absence of ethics at their school, so they are getting a bit of a taste other faiths (I's just jesus, jesus, jesus all the time, was my 6yro's comment).
posted by bystander at 1:28 AM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


no constitutional separation of church & state

No First Amendment, but there's good old s116.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
So you can't make them go to scripture classes, but ethics classes can be replaced with, well, going back to re-runs of Lilo & Stich for example.
posted by GeckoDundee at 1:30 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Growing up in a state that doesn't have any kind of compulsory religious education in public schools, I was kinda shocked to hear that it was actually a thing in NSW, and Victoria I believe? Freaking weirdos. What an anachronism. This is what Sunday School was invented for, people...
posted by Jimbob at 1:30 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


As long as he's still alive, there's still a change he'll be caught with his pants around his ankles in a park in Darlinghurst...
Last year his network login was found to have accessed 1000s of porn images. He claimed it was done by an assistant for 'research' purposes.
Regardless of the hypocrisy, he should have been severely reprimanded for such a breach of parliamentary security. I could get sacked if I logged in as another user and surfed websites, even if that user allowed me to.
posted by bystander at 1:31 AM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]



this sounds ghost-written by an adult.

Read the background link.


Hm, good point. I think that was the age I started to reject religion. Except for The Living Force, of course.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 1:37 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


"I trust you not to be manipulated by a man who on Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras gets down on his knees and prays for rain"

I like Charlie!
posted by ts;dr at 2:12 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


No First Amendment, but there's good old s116.
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
So you can't make them go to scripture classes, but ethics classes can be replaced with, well, going back to re-runs of Lilo & Stich for example.
Unfortunately section 116 only applies to the Commonwealth, not to States, and school education is a State responsibility. Courts have interpreted section 116 very narrowly in the past - basically, anything short of an explicit establishment of a national state religion seems to be okay.

There is an ongoing case in the High Court challenging the National School Chaplaincy Program (a non-legislated program under which the Commonwealth government funds chaplains, exclusively Christian as far as I know, in schools) under section 116; much more information, including submissions, is here. The chaplains program is an obvious violation of the spirit of section 116 so there is some hope that this High Court, which has taken a pretty robust approach to overruling the Government on constitutional grounds, will find for the plaintiff. I wouldn't bet on it, though.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 2:14 AM on August 2, 2011 [6 favorites]


The explanation provided by Charlie's mother explains a lot, but still proves nothing. Having said that, I still believe it's all Charlie's work - because I want it to be true.
Here in Poland ethics classes are taught, more often than not, by some devout member of the congregation kindly provided by the catholic church, which kinda defeats their purpose.
posted by hat_eater at 2:17 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


I mean, obviously a Christian can teach without proselytizing, but unfortunately it's seldom the case here.
I hope my clarification clarifies that and more than that.
posted by hat_eater at 2:41 AM on August 2, 2011


Thanks, A Thousand Baited Hooks. I knew about the Chaplains case and I must've assumed that schools generally were a federal responsibility.
posted by GeckoDundee at 2:41 AM on August 2, 2011


Growing up in a state that doesn't have any kind of compulsory religious education in public schools, I was kinda shocked to hear that it was actually a thing in NSW, and Victoria I believe? Freaking weirdos. What an anachronism. This is what Sunday School was invented for, people...

I recall a bit about the Vic education department threatening to sue a school board and parents for mentioning alternative options. It is weird and fucked up, but then religious ed was explicitly illegal in state schools in New Zealand until 1987, but schools routinely flouted it with the sort of charming Christian folks who would, e.g., tell the kids they needed to shun the "heathens" in their classes unless they wanted to go to hell, too.
posted by rodgerd at 2:51 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, I knew that this was a NSW thing, so that should have given me a big clue to its being a state matter. Do you know if any of the states have a separation of church and state clause in their constitutions?
posted by GeckoDundee at 2:51 AM on August 2, 2011


Tasmanian constitution has this stuck on the end...
CONSTITUTION ACT 1934 - SECT 46
PART V - General Provisions 46. Religious freedom

(1) Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

(2) No person shall be subject to any disability, or be required to take any oath on account of his religion or religious belief and no religious test shall be imposed in respect of the appointment to or holding of any public office.
posted by Jimbob at 2:58 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Although it could always be worse. You could be trying to raise children in Queensland.
posted by rodgerd at 3:06 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


No First Amendment, but there's good old s116.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.


Erm, that's Commonwealth. Education is in the State jurisdiction, as it isn't mentioned in good old s51, which defines the limited list of things the federal government has control over.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:22 AM on August 2, 2011


or what a thousand baited hooks said earlier
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:24 AM on August 2, 2011


Although it could always be worse. You could be trying to raise children in Queensland.

If you were a kid in QLD when Sir Joh was around (as I was), then it is absolutely true that humans co-existed with dinosaurs.
posted by smoke at 3:36 AM on August 2, 2011 [10 favorites]


The chaplains program is an obvious violation of the spirit of section 116 so there is some hope that this High Court, which has taken a pretty robust approach to overruling the Government on constitutional grounds, will find for the plaintiff. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

Will comment more on this later, but all the plaintiff's arguments about the invalidity of the payment on the basis of appropriation/authority stuff is pure scatter-shot. If the court agreed to those arguments, most of the annual discretionary budget would be found unconstitutional.
posted by kithrater at 3:47 AM on August 2, 2011


Beautiful.
posted by zzazazz at 3:48 AM on August 2, 2011


Ah, Queensland, Australia's Florida.
posted by nicolas léonard sadi carnot at 3:54 AM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


So Mr Nile, I would be delighted if you would come and actually observe our ethics classes, so that you can see first-hand how they work.


Seriously kid, you don't want this, you want to keep well away from him. The man's made of poison.
posted by the noob at 4:05 AM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]


The explanation provided by Charlie's mother explains a lot, but still proves nothing.

I thought it was the journalist who knew him who was vouching for Charlie -- not his mother.

Of course, Charlie's article would have been edited by someone working on the paper. Exactly as would be the case for anyone else who's article had been accepted for publication.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:08 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Its pretty weird how prelevant religious education is here, especially since Australia is so outwardly un-religious we have an atheist PM.


Cast your mind back to the Howard Government's need to pass legislation and Steve Fielding in the Senate.....
posted by the noob at 4:10 AM on August 2, 2011


Berlin had a referendum on a similar issue a couple years back. (Well, actually the opposite issue--ceasing to require ethics and allowing religion to the substituted, instead of requiring ethics and offering religion.)
posted by hoyland at 4:19 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


Will comment more on this later, but all the plaintiff's arguments about the invalidity of the payment on the basis of appropriation/authority stuff is pure scatter-shot. If the court agreed to those arguments, most of the annual discretionary budget would be found unconstitutional.

Yeah, I'm no expert on these things (the Compact of 1965??) but that part does seem a little strained. Mind you, some of the defendants' arguments are worse.

The plaintiff's submission doesn't really get interesting until the end:
81. Having regard to the object of s 116, such a construction [by which "office under the Commonwealth" covers these chaplains] should be favoured. Let it be assumed that the Commonwealth Executive has entered into a range of contracts pursuant to which various govermmental functions and the provision of public services are to be carried out by private entities. If a narrow understanding of the notion of an office under the Commonwealth were adopted, it would be permissible for the Commonwealth to insert into each such contract a provision to the effect that the employees or independent contractors engaged by the private entities in question adhere to a given religious faith. It would be to deprive the "religious test" clause in s 116 of much force if the Commonwealth were able to circumvent its prohibition on religious tests merely by "sub-contracting" whole swathes of governmental activity.
This (read alongside the surrounding paragraphs) looks like a much stronger argument and I'm a little surprised that at least the first defendant's submission doesn't address it in any meaningful way.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 4:46 AM on August 2, 2011


Just wrote a spiel... deleted it. Tl;dr indeed. So here's my Readers Digest Condensed version:

First, my kid was identified as gifted and talented in kindergarten (aged 5). She's now in Year 7 (aged 13). She earned a distinction in the statewide G & T program, and just last week received an Outstanding Achievement in English award. She would still not write such an articulate piece. I suspect much more adult-edits than the article admits.

Secondly, Fred Nile is living proof that only the good die young.
posted by malibustacey9999 at 4:53 AM on August 2, 2011


The chaplains program is an obvious violation of the spirit of section 116 so there is some hope that this High Court, which has taken a pretty robust approach to overruling the Government on constitutional grounds, will find for the plaintiff. I wouldn't bet on it, though.

I wouldn't bet on it either. TL;DR? Don't blame you - this is a very long legal deliberation. This (much shorter) opinion piece from 2001 has an easily digestible summary.

I was saving these links (and many others) for a possible FPP on the current high court case once a ruling was made, but this seems to be as good a place as any to share some of them
posted by KirkpatrickMac at 4:56 AM on August 2, 2011


KirkpatrickMac, that case is certainly relevant but there are some major differences between it and the Williams challenge that allow a little bit of hope. The 1981 case was about the Commonwealth providing money to religious schools via grants to the States and the big question was whether providing money indirectly to a religious school amounted to an establishment of religion, with the "office or public trust under the Commonwealth" limb of section 116 not really entering into it. The school chaplaincy program is a different matter because the Commonwealth is expressly requiring the imposition of a religious test as a precondition of paying out Commonwealth money.

I think the pivotal question will be whether these chaplains occupy "offices under the Commonwealth", and that could go either way. It should help that the High Court we have now is heaps smarter than the one they had in 1981.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:33 AM on August 2, 2011


First, my kid was identified as gifted and talented in kindergarten (aged 5). She's now in Year 7 (aged 13). She earned a distinction in the statewide G & T program, and just last week received an Outstanding Achievement in English award. She would still not write such an articulate piece. I suspect much more adult-edits than the article admits.

My condensed version of your condensed version:

My gifted and talented kid couldn't write this, so no kid could.

Do you know how condescending that sounds ?
posted by Pendragon at 6:20 AM on August 2, 2011 [7 favorites]


Yeah, regarding the "authenticity" of the article...if you don't believe some smart-arse 11 year-olds are capable of writing like that, you haven't met enough smart-arse 11 year-olds.
posted by Jimbob at 6:32 AM on August 2, 2011 [9 favorites]


> there are some major differences

Thanks for the clarification, that was very helpful in making a distinction. But still too many shades of grey for my (non-legal) mind! It's for situations like this I wish this country had had someone like Jefferson .. his letter to the Danbury Baptists really stands out in its simplicity and completeness of message.

the High Court we have now is heaps smarter

How? (this is not snark, genuinely interested!)
posted by KirkpatrickMac at 6:41 AM on August 2, 2011


I think I'm just lazier than Charlie - because I would have loved to spend time colouring or watching Lilo and Stitch instead of going to Scripture class. And I was a devout Christian and bible-trivia champ at age 11. But tv/colouring was still better than class.

Seriously - I used to volunteer to shelve library books so that I could eat my lunch out of the crowded library and watch tv for 1/2 an hour.
posted by jb at 6:43 AM on August 2, 2011


I was a smartypants kid too (not so verbal, more mathy) and I remember very clearly how annoying it was to be constantly underestimated by grownups. At age five, I vowed never to be that kind of adult.

Reading this now, I'm as amazed as anybody, but I fully believe Charlie Fine wrote this himself. If I didn't, five-year-old me would never forgive the betrayal.
posted by otherthings_ at 7:25 AM on August 2, 2011 [5 favorites]


(the Compact of 1965??)

Section 53 of the Constitution provides that the Senate may not amend a bill which would appropriate money for the ordinary annual services of the government. The Compact is an agreement between the House and the Senate as to what constitutes an "ordinary annual service of the Government".

re: Office of the Commonwealth,

Commonwealth is expressly requiring the imposition of a religious test as a precondition of paying out Commonwealth money.

The Commonwealth is providing money to a school, on the condition that "the schools and their communities ... engage a school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker and demonstrate how the services provided by the school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker achieve the outcomes required by the Program" (p4/26).

Granted, I would quite happily take a bet that in 99% of cases it's going to be a school chaplain and not a secular Pastoral Care Worker. But that's not the argument the plaintiff is making.
posted by kithrater at 8:11 AM on August 2, 2011


He is the type of kid who asks lots of questions about social issues, reads newspaper articles on politicians that interest him — Silvio Berlusconi being one of his favourites

Man, if ever a kid needed a class in ethics!
posted by FfejL at 8:28 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


kithrater: The Compact is an agreement between the House and the Senate as to what constitutes an "ordinary annual service of the Government".

Thanks, I should probably know that.

The Commonwealth is providing money to a school, on the condition that "the schools and their communities ... engage a school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker and demonstrate how the services provided by the school chaplain/secular Pastoral Care Worker achieve the outcomes required by the Program" (p4/26).

The trick is, and this isn't clear from the guidelines, that schools can only engage a "secular pastoral care worker" once they have "exhausted all reasonable avenues to find a suitable chaplain" (see here under What do I need to know about Secular Pastoral Care Workers?). The money is provided to schools, to educational authorities, to entities representing non-government schools or in some cases directly to the religious organisations (p6 of the guidelines [PDF]).

The most interesting question posed by the case, which hopefully the High Court will answer, is essentially: "can the Commonwealth require that individuals who are performing, under contract, its functions on its behalf satisfy a religious test?"

KirkpatrickMac:
the High Court we have now is heaps smarter
How? (this is not snark, genuinely interested!)


To be honest that was a bit flippant, but the current court is pretty good on the Constitution. Their judgements tend to have a real analytical rigour to them, but back in the early '80s the court was quite politically conservative and the judges seemed much more likely to decide according to their personal prejudices - although it certainly wasn't anything like the partisan craziness of the US Supreme Court.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 8:46 AM on August 2, 2011


This so called "kid" is a danger to Australia, Australianess and Australiana. And Australopithecines and Austerity. Also Austria. Etc.

My point is, little Damien Thorne here is criticizing an older, wiser, and Christianer statesman, the Revenant Fred Nile, merely because said person prays for rain.

But isn't Australia the droughtiest continent by far? And isn't it the case that Australia's age-old problem of dry-dustiness will only be exacerbated by global warming? And doesn't that imply a perfect dust-storm of thirstiness, leaving our sunblushed land utterly dehydrated unto the level of a hairy, dessicated scab?

So let's leave this 11 year-old where he belongs, i.e. toiling slavishly down a dark uranium mine, and all come together to pray for rain like the Revolving Fred Nile. Only when "Terra Australis" becomes "Terra Aqua" will the forces of Terra be defeated and we can all Mardi Gras in wet t-shirts with our nipples as effulgent as Christ intended.

Also, you’re all ... I dunno, horrible skink-molesters, or something. I'm just calling this comment in, frankly - I hate Fred Nile. Good on Charlie Fine.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 9:00 AM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]


The most interesting question posed by the case, which hopefully the High Court will answer, is essentially: "can the Commonwealth require that individuals who are performing, under contract, its functions on its behalf satisfy a religious test?"

Not quite the problem at hand - the Commonwealth is requiring nothing of the chaplain. The Commonwealth is making money paid to the school (or other qualified body) conditional on them showing they had a chaplain and said chaplain did chaplin-ey things.

There is no contract between the Commonwealth and the individual. Nor is it really a subcontractor relationship: the chaplain is not performing any part of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the School. The chaplain is the agreement.

The plaintiff's argument is that if you have a contract with the Commonwealth that says "bring me a chaplain and make him do chaplain-ey things, and then I will give you money", then the chaplain who does chaplin-ey things is "under office of the Commonwealth".
posted by kithrater at 9:04 AM on August 2, 2011


> christian lobby complains that now their kids will be at some kind of disadvantage, because atheist kids are getting "extra" ethics classes that religious kids miss out on.

Um...isn't that implicitly admitting that the ethical content is missing in their scriptures? I agree!

That is an interpretation I also enjoy, but I think the truth is that the Christian lobby are upset that kids whose parents don't want them to study scripture in school (which isn't the same set as kids whose parents are atheists, by the way) aren't being punished with boredom and life-wasting any more.

The idea that a child might learn to treat others in a more Christlike manner instead of watching Lilo & Stitch for the eighth time — that's an idea that the Christian lobby cannot abide.
posted by No-sword at 2:34 PM on August 2, 2011


Your views are out of step with modern society

If someone said that to me, I'd be pleased as punch all day long.
posted by Twang at 3:39 PM on August 2, 2011


The idea that a child might learn to treat others in a more Christlike manner instead of watching Lilo & Stitch for the eighth time — that's an idea that the Christian lobby cannot abide.

I'd also put it down as a symptom of helicopter parenting: the religious parents hate even the remotest possibility that other kids might get a slight advantage in exams or university, because the secular kids been discussing things like euthanasia or animal rights, while their kids have only been learning about the teachings of their preferred flavour of flying spaghetti monster.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:46 PM on August 2, 2011


The idea that a child might learn to treat others in a more Christlike manner instead of watching Lilo & Stitch for the eighth time — that's an idea that the Christian lobby cannot abide.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Ohana means 'family'. Ohana means nobody gets left behind.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 4:28 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]


Apparently today in parliament, Fred Nile suggested that the ethics classes are teaching "secular humanism" (gasp!) - and likened them to teaching the philosophy of the Nazis in World War II.

Glad to say he was jeered by his colleagues.
posted by Jimbob at 10:38 PM on August 4, 2011


"It's relative ethics, which is the basis of secular humanism and I believe ... this is the philosophy we saw during World War II with the Nazis and with the communists," Mr Nile told the Legislative Council today.

"Situation ethics, as I see it, was followed by other regimes such as the Nazis and communists.

"Situation ethics means nothing is right and nothing is wrong ... Therefore, you can kill human beings without any embarrassment and any reservations.

"It's a very dangerous philosophy."

posted by UbuRoivas at 11:30 PM on August 4, 2011


I'd like to think that Fred Nile is just a massive troll, Godwinning Parliament.

The alternative is just too pathetic to contemplate.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:32 PM on August 4, 2011 [1 favorite]


Fred Nile is still alive?
posted by bright cold day at 1:02 AM on August 2 [3 favorites +] [!]

Well, about as 'alive' as a lich can be.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 1:23 AM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


I am so proud to be a South Australian by heritage (although now living on Hobart, via Darwin). South Australia is the state settled by free settlers, including a bunch of German Lutherans. We spawned the "Festival of Light", who came to my highschool and taught us all how evil and unhealthy anal sex is, but they've been quiet since. It's nice to see NSW has the full complement of batshitinsane God-bothering fundamentalists. I've always expected such. Hillsong is just a symptom of the disease.
posted by Jimbob at 2:16 AM on August 5, 2011


On another note, I became politically "active" at about 13, after reading some very, very nasty letters in the Adelaide Advertiser. I lost a friend in last first year of primary school, because I supported Aboriginal rights, and he was, thanks to his father, a racist bigot. His father still writes letters to the Advertister to this day. First name is Raymond, can't remember his last name. I selected as my two main targets Fred Nile, and National Action, the Adelaide-based neo-nazi fascists who put posters around town reading STOP ASIAN IMMIGRATION NOW! It was kinda fortunate, kinda sad, that I ended up in highschool with the son of one of the main National Action activists. I kid you not. When we walked out to the carpark to our parents' cars after school he yelled "COMMIE!" at me, and I yelled "FASCIST!" back at him. He replied "You don't know what that means! Don't use words when you don't know what the mean!". According to legend, his father had a display case full of Nazi memorabilia...badges, guns, uniforms. As far as I know, the guy is now fighting in Afghanistan in the Australian Army, and has chilled out a lot. His sister was kinda hot.

Thus endeth the ramble for tonight.
posted by Jimbob at 2:26 AM on August 5, 2011 [1 favorite]


http://heathenscripture.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/if-you-believe-in-fairies-stay-the-fck-away-from-children/
posted by vidur at 8:39 PM on August 8, 2011


« Older 한(汗) or Han [Click larger picture on the left to p...   |   How to Ruin Your PC Port in 5 ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments