Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"We
October 4, 2001 7:24 PM   Subscribe

"We wish to dissent against the using of the Capitol rotunda and other governmental buildings for prayer meetings that focus on Christian or monotheistic ceremonies." Comments?
posted by semmi (31 comments total)

 
so much for tolerance.
posted by willconsult4food at 7:31 PM on October 4, 2001


Pity there's no petition to sign.
posted by rushmc at 7:32 PM on October 4, 2001


Our government is already mired so deeply in religion that such stances really seem futile, no matter how strongly I may agree with them. In spite of the naive notion that there is supposedly some degree of separation between church and state, it has never existed and probably never will.
posted by daveleck at 7:49 PM on October 4, 2001


From that Web site: We deplore the unfortunate use of the term “crusade” to describe the response of the United States to the terrorists. We would caution against turning this conflict into a holy war between the Islamic jihad and the Western world.

Bush used the word "crusade" once, to my knowledge, in an offhand, but very unfortunate remark during a brief Q&A with reporters. And his meaning was obviously "prolonged engagement," not "religious war." Kinda silly that Mr. Secular Humanist has to single that out as if it's proof that our gov't. is launching its own Judeo-Christian jihad.
posted by verdezza at 7:52 PM on October 4, 2001


Separating church and state is the only way to ensure religious freedom for everyone — including those who choose not to participate in organized religion. I cringe every time I hear the leaders of the U.S. government sounding like church deacons. Leave the preaching to the preachers.
posted by barkingmoose at 7:59 PM on October 4, 2001


Ridiculous. The idea of separation of church and state was not to say people couldn't pray in public buildings or the public figures couldn't make religious remarks. It was simply so that the government would allow you to be whatever religion you want, and not tell people they MUST be a certain religion. I don't even believe in GOD or religion personally, but saying that people can't pray voluntarily in public government building or the president can't refer to his faith is the exact opposite of what separation of church and state was meant to be.
posted by rabbit at 8:29 PM on October 4, 2001


Well, as someone who considers himself a 'secular humnaist' (I like 'ethical culturist' myself, but it's about the same thing) I definately cringe inside a lot these days. Of course, as a New Yorker who now cries watching Limp Bizkit videos (Just the 'Rollin' video) I definately don't think this is really the time to be complaining about the whole 'God' on the money thing. Maybe in 10 years when I've got the WTC back I'll worry about it. I would definately prefer it if politicians would refer to God in more personal ways rather than 'in general American' kinds of ways.
posted by QrysDonnell at 8:54 PM on October 4, 2001


It seems to me that, in a democracy, our government should reflect who we are as a people. Our system of criminal law is directly derived from our social norms, just as our approach to domestic policy is determined by our most deeply held values. For most people, these values and norms flow directly from their spiritual convictions.

What separates a democracy from a theocracy is our commitment, as a matter of policy, to equal respect for all religions. As far as government decisions go, each religion must be addressed without discrimination.

That does not mean, however, that we should scrub all traces of our religious beliefs from every public office. If our country is dedicated to the free exercise of religion, an absolute separation of church and state would constrict and inhibit the very freedom that we are seeking to protect.

Far from being anathema to a good and effective government, our religious beliefs are in many ways the foundation of this country. Like it or not, practically every necessary function of the government has a moral or religious component to it at some level. Making good policy decisions almost always requires good moral judgement.

Regarding the separation of church and state, John Quincy Adams once said that "the highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

Suppose we took that statement and compared it with a statement of the opposite sentiment: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it forever separated the principles of civil government from the principles of Christianity." You could ask a thousand Americans today which of these two statements is closer to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, most people would get it wrong.
posted by gd779 at 8:55 PM on October 4, 2001


I'm certain that Phil Hendrie did a sketch along these lines. I'd link but the archive only goes back 5 days. Just as good though is the Korean war Vet. who was charged with spousal abuse for attacking his wife that came from the shower wearing a towel on her head - "I thought she a deep cover Taliban operative."
posted by malwilde at 9:13 PM on October 4, 2001


Far from being anathema to a good and effective government, our religious beliefs are in many ways the foundation of this country. Like it or not, practically every necessary function of the government has a moral or religious component to it at some level. Making good policy decisions almost always requires good moral judgement.

Certainly. However it is not clear whether religious faith in a God is a requirement for good moral judgement. And in fact, it appears that quite a few of the people most lacking in good moral judgement, are not lacking in religious faith.

Suppose we took that statement and compared it with a statement of the opposite sentiment: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it forever separated the principles of civil government from the principles of Christianity." You could ask a thousand Americans today which of these two statements is closer to the beliefs of our Founding Fathers. Unfortunately, most people would get it wrong.

Why not, we could point out that James Madison said:
The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an
associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number,
the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the
total separation of the church from the State


But perhaps most importantly, the founding fathers made their wishes clear first when they stated no religious test shall ever be required for public service, and second when they stated congress will make no law regarding an establishment of religion.

In regards to prayer service in the Capital. I honestly don't consider it to be a big deal as long as they don't start censuring those who don't participate.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:30 PM on October 4, 2001


Well when looking at things like "Separation of Church and State" or "Freedom of Religion," it helps to not just interpret it literally. I mean, one needs to take into account the historical and cultural effect of the time it was written. What was the intent of those longhaired weirdoes we call our Founding Fathers? They had just gone across an entire ocean to get away from vaguely benevolent *kaff* dictatorships which were mired in religious doctrine. Personally I'm mostly familiar with England cuz I happened to study that country more, but the colonists prior to 1776 had come from all over. And most of Europe at that time was still under the Pope's thumb. That's what the whole mess between King Henry's daughters was about. Queen Elizabeth was a protestant like her daddy. Queen "Bloody" Mary was catholic and used protestants for shooting practice. By the time King Georgie Three came around, Great Britain was pretty effed up, which is why some Britts ran over here. Other countries had similar crap going on. Religion would tell rulers and leaders to do pretty silly things, and the people found it revolting. So they revolted.

Okay. I'm summarizing several hundred years of history for countless countries and it's easy to argue that there were thousands of other factors, but predominantly Italy and the Pope were still pretty damn powerful back in those days. My posts are always too long anyway, so I won't bore you with the details. Instead I bore you with the generalities. It's more fun.

So the guys who helped put America together politically, wanted to keep not only Kings from other countries out of America, but they wanted to keep the Pope out of things, too. However, for the most part they were still God-fearing type people... Well, okay Tommy Jefferson was an aetheist, I think. He re-edited the Bible once and took out all the miracles: the stuff that couldn't be explained scientifically. It's a very thin book. You should read it some time... I think Benjy F. was a Quaker... Alex "The Ham" Hamilton pretty much just worshipped himself in the mirror... They couldn't all agree on what religion to follow, but most of them pretty much agreed there was only one grey-haired guy up in the clouds.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but there were no polytheistic worshippers in attendance at the signing of the Declaration of Independence. If there WERE, they weren't openly pagan, cuz there were still people burning witches at the stake. Witch burnings were just starting to get frowned upon by the late 1700s, but in the boonies of early America, witch burning was still a mildly popular past-time.

So the long-haired weirdoes who forged America wanted a separation of Church and State, but they also made the painful assumption that everyone else in the country should and would agree with them on their One True God concept. They still trusted in the God that the Pope helped make so popular on the other side of the pond. Which is why "In God We Trust" is on all the American money, and this would lead me off on another tangent as to whether they were worshipping God or Money, but I digress...

With all this in mind here's my point: ...oh heck I forget where I was going with all this. Well let's face it, the founding fathers of America were a bunch of wankers. They still thought slavery was a pretty neato idea back then, and we've completely turned that on its head. Took 230 years but I think we're at least pointing in the right direction on that now. ...well actually we screwed all that up and we'll never get it right.

To hell with it. Who wants to write a new constitution? Let's just throw the baby out with the bathwater and start from scratch.

Ammendment 1 revised: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or whether or not there should be religion, or how many gods there are, if there are any, regardless of whether or not any gods give a crap about us, or for that matter aliens or creatures living in the Earth's core... oh, and free speech will forever after cost ten cents a word."

Ooh! I'd go broke!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:54 PM on October 4, 2001




secular (sek-yuh-luhr)
Not concerned with religion or religious matters. Secular is the opposite of sacred.

• Secularization refers to the declining influence of religion and religious values within a given culture. Secular humanism means, loosely, a belief in human self-sufficiency.
posted by xxx--xxx at 12:11 AM on October 5, 2001


It was simply so that the government would allow you to be whatever religion you want, and not tell people they MUST be a certain religion.

Not quite: if you look at the established Church in England at the time of the War of Independence, you'll see that there was no compulsion to practise per se, but that certain things were off-limits if you didn't: university, public office, and so on. And there were other prohibitions, specifically restricting the movements of Catholics, that went back to the Popish Plot of the 1670s.

Zach: I canbetter you, except to say that all those Deists didn't believe in an interventionist God, so they weren't doin' all that much prayin'.
posted by holgate at 1:30 AM on October 5, 2001



On a related note, here's a column on America's True "Religion" that's worth pondering:
Fact is, America is not a religious country, not a Christian country, at all. American's do not understand this--but the terrorists who struck us on September 11th did understand it. They attacked America because of what we really do believe in: reason, [rights], and reality. America has the most secular, rational culture in history. We are the most reality-oriented, fact-respecting people in the world. This is the source of all our achievements and greatness, not Christianity. [...]

Americans today who call themselves Christians may be sincere and truly believe that they believe in their religion--but the fact is, the religion they profess to believe is a very Americanized version of Christianity. The religion that American's believe in and practice is an edited, abridged, watered-down version of what Christ created 2000 years ago in the Middle East.

Thus, American women might say they admire Mother Teresa--but they want to live like Martha Stewart. American men might say they admire Jesus Christ--but they want to do business like Bill Gates. American's might say they have hopes for the afterlife--but they want to live--on earth, right now, for as long as they can, and as well as they can. They want big beautiful homes, gleaming SUV's, healthy, happy children--and lot's of money in the bank to spend on whatever makes them happy. [...]

Think a pure Christianity would be any different from pure Islam? Look again at the history of the Crusades, a time when maniacal Christians went out to slaughter as much of the Islamic world as they could, with the attitude, "Kill them all, let God sort them out." Now, Christianity (in the West, at least) has been tamed by [secular] reason. Islam has not.

If America is to win the war against terrorism, it's going to have to wake up to its true nature and its true values. It is going to have to champion those values consciously, righteously, unapologetically. Those values are: reason, rights, and reality--and death to anyone who tries to take them from us. We are going to have to decide if we are Christians--or Americans. Because in reality, we can't be both.
posted by frednorman at 2:21 AM on October 5, 2001


Civil and thoughtful, What a pleasure this thread was to read!
posted by revbrian at 2:26 AM on October 5, 2001


[The religion that American's believe in and practice is an edited, abridged, watered-down version of what Christ created 2000 years ago in the Middle East]

Actually, modern Christianity has so little to do with what Christ taught it's rather sad his name is linked to it. It hasn't been watered down, it's been muddied up. A quick read of either of the four gospels would show you that "Hippies" have more in common with Christ than Pat Robertson.

Religion itself isn't a threat, it's Religious Fascism we need to worry about. Whether it be the Taliban, or the "Moral Majority". Any religion that denies another individual their right of free expression leads us down the road to totalitarianism.
posted by revbrian at 2:36 AM on October 5, 2001


Not quite: if you look at the established Church in England at the time of the War of Independence, you'll see that there was no compulsion to practise per se, but that certain things were off-limits if you didn't: university, public office, and so on. And there were other prohibitions, specifically restricting the movements of Catholics, that went back to the Popish Plot of the 1670s

Actually you say not quite and then go one to prove my point. Essentially the government was saying they "must" be a certain religion in order to achieve certain things in society. Don't play these semantics games....
posted by rabbit at 3:41 AM on October 5, 2001


A quick read of either of the four gospels would show you that "Hippies" have more in common with Christ than Pat Robertson.

And, intriguingly, the Levantine Christian denominations that appear least altered by history, because they schismed off even before 1054, have practices that have more in common with the region's Jews and Arabs. Unsurprising, given that it's the well-spring of Western religion, but it's not something that usually penetrates the bible belt.
posted by holgate at 3:53 AM on October 5, 2001


Well when looking at things like "Separation of Church and State" or "Freedom of Religion," it helps to not just interpret it literally.

I will trade one "don't take literally" card here for one on the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 5:47 AM on October 5, 2001


I feel sorry for all yoos whose experience with religion is so negative that you feel threatened by people praying in a government building (or praying anywhere). It's fairly obvious following the service held at the National Cathedral the Friday after 9/11 that this is a pretty Christian, yet open/tolerant nation. It's pretty clear you are free in the US to worship what you want, or not at all. Also, internationally in the last 100 years, the No Religion/Secular Camp is still way ahead of the Religion Camp on the Oppression Meter.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:59 AM on October 5, 2001


ZachsMind: Isn't the "In God We Trust" thing on our money a relatively recent thing?

I think the problem many have with the prayer services in our legislative buildings is that as representatives of ALL Americans, our legislators fail those who have no particluar religious persuasion. Certainly they have the right to believe as they choose but should they, as REPRESENTATIVES, publically flaunt a belief system that may not be representative of their constituency?

I was watching Andy Card being thrown mostly softballs last night by Jim Lehrer but he did ask one good question. He asked about the statement Ari Fleischer made about how we should be careful about what we say and was that the position of the White House. Card responded that Ari was exercising his right to free speech. My take is that Ari IS THE OFFICIAL MOUTHPIECE of Dubya and is supposed to reflect the position of the White House, not his personal opinions. After all, if I expressed my true opinions to customers while I'm being paid to represent my company, I'm quite sure my free speech rights and my freedom to practice my chosen religion could have severe consequences. Our paid Congressional Representatives should be held no less accountable.
posted by nofundy at 6:32 AM on October 5, 2001


we could point out that James Madison said: The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state

And yet James Madison served on the committee that recommended the establishment of Congressional chaplains.

I think that our dispute here is entirely one of semantics. When James Madison and the other founding fathers spoke of the "separation of church and state" and of religious freedom, they were referring to a rule intended to prevent government from regulating or interfering with the Church. However, both their actions and their writings indicate that they would never have wanted all religion to be removed from public life. Like you, Kirk, they didn't have a problem with prayer service at the capitol building, so long as those who don't participate weren't censured.

But that's why I prefer to speak about "religious freedom" rather than the "separation of church and state". Though both phrases mean the same thing when properly understood, recently certain groups have begun using the "separation" language to try and convince people that religion has no place in government. And I think that's just wrong.

However it is not clear whether religious faith in a God is a requirement for good moral judgement. And in fact, it appears that quite a few of the people most lacking in good moral judgement, are not lacking in religious faith.

Absolutely correct.
posted by gd779 at 6:48 AM on October 5, 2001


Looks like polytheism is still okay, and pantheism probably, though neither fits in with "secular humanism". Are agnostics included in this? After all, if they pray, they're not sure anyone is listening.

Me? I'm a borderline agnostic, lapsed Catholic who loves his fellow humans. And proud of it.
posted by tommasz at 6:49 AM on October 5, 2001


Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It is a disservice to all Americans when godism - even watered-down, ecumenical, all-gods-are-the-same-god crap - is performed in a government building, by elected officials.

Furthermore, it sends a dangerous signal to our would-be enemies: "our god v. your god," or "we'll see who's side god is on."

Religious conviction, or lack thereof, should be a private concern. You can't bring godism into public policy without threatenting to open discussions of theology.

ParisParimus said, "I feel sorry for all yoos whose experience with religion is so negative that you feel threatened by people praying in a government building (or praying anywhere). " Please don't do this - psychologizing my beliefs is an arrogant dismissal, and inaccurate. I have had absolutely no negative experiences with religion - in fact, may positive ones. My visits to St. Johns University have been some of the most delightful experiences of my life, and I have been made to feel very welcome there as a guest. I don't feel threatened by praying in general or praying in government buildings. But I do have a principled and reasoned objection to public officials endorsement of generic xianity.
posted by yesster at 8:27 AM on October 5, 2001


But that's why I prefer to speak about "religious freedom" rather than the "separation of church and state". Though both phrases mean the same thing when properly understood, recently certain groups have begun using the "separation" language to try and convince people that religion has no place in government. And I think that's just wrong.

I think it depends on what you mean when you say that religion has a place in government. If you are talking about your right as a religious person to vote or hold public office, by all means that right is protected (along with my rights as an atheist to do the same). If you are talking about sponsored prayer in schools, or displaying Christian liturgical texts such as the 10 commandments prominently in courthouses, then the establishment clause is pretty darn clear. In fact I would argue that paid congressional chaplans are a violation of the establishment clause, but there are considerably larger battles to fight.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:56 AM on October 5, 2001


Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion. It is a disservice to all Americans when godism - even watered-down, ecumenical, all-gods-are-the-same-god crap - is performed in a government building, by elected officials.

Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion if that is what someone chooses, but it does not mandate freedom from religion for anyone, including elected officials who vountarily choose to take part in religious activities. regardless of where those activities are held. What, specifically is this "disservice" that is being done, and why should elected officials be less free because of their elected status?
posted by Dreama at 9:57 AM on October 5, 2001


I feel sorry for all yoos whose experience with religion is so negative that you feel threatened by people praying in a government building (or praying anywhere).

Why shouldn't someone feel threatened by the idea that makers of important decisions routinely seek guidance from an invisible superman? History -- recent history -- demonstrates that the answers you get back can justify anything at all. This doesn't frighten you?
posted by kindall at 10:28 AM on October 5, 2001


nofundy: "In God we trust" has been on our money since 1864.

Certainly they have the right to believe as they choose but should they, as REPRESENTATIVES, publicly flaunt a belief system that may not be representative of their constituency?

I've been thinking about this since you wrote it earlier this morning. On first glance, I empathized with your point.

But on the other hand, the right to publicly practice your faith is a foundational freedom enjoyed by every member of our society. If the point of democracy is to encourage participation in government by all citizens, then this freedom must extend equally to our representatives, even in their capacity as representatives. Let me explain why I think that's true:

Saying that representatives have to abandon all their religious principles (I know that you're not, I'm illustrating) when they become legislators would be both unjust and impractical. Unjust, because it violates their right to belive and practice whatever religion they wish. Impractical because nobody would actually do it. Like it or not, people base their political views, at least in part, on their religious worldview.

If we know, then, that religion is going to play a substantive role in the business of government, why would we draw a line prohibiting the expression of religion during the business of government? If we know that many of our legislators are Christians, and will be deciding the law as Christian legislators, what is wrong with a public expression of their Christianity? I'm talking about things like Congressional prayer, for example.

Would I like this principle if America became a predominately Buddhist country? No. But the beauty of our democracy is that it represents the views of the majority even while upholding the religious freedom of the minority. Though a shift in the dominant religion would certainly be reflected in our government, our freedom of religion is constitutionally protected and cannot be removed.

We live in a pluralistic society which recognizes that while members of our government may have varying religious beliefs, our government as a whole upholds religious freedom. This principle is not undermined if it turns out that a majority of our representatives share a common faith, and thus find it convenient to open the government with a voluntary prayer.

Our Congresspeople will pass precisely the same laws, regardless of whether or not they chose to pray prior to working. They will have the same obligation to uphold religious freedom, regardless of whether or not they pray. And though I agree that they are perceived to represent the majority of this country (don't like it? vote for a non-Christian) they are most definitely not purporting to represent the religious views of every single American.


Speaking from my experiences with a number of both state and national representatives, I can say that, for many in government, religious convictions are inseparably intertwined with public service. In their minds, service in government is really a form of their service to God. Should we really force people to abandon the public profession of their convictions if they want to serve in the legislature? This would prevent many of our most qualified citizens from ever entering public service. I think it would be fundamentally unjust as well, because it would be robbing our representatives of the full exercise of their religious freedom.

As I stated before, I believe that good policy decisions requires good moral judgement (which, for many, is derived from religion). If that's true, then then the exercise of that religion is inseparable from proper governance.

If you are talking about sponsored prayer in schools, or displaying Christian liturgical texts such as the 10 commandments prominently in courthouses, then the establishment clause is pretty darn clear. In fact I would argue that paid congressional chaplains are a violation of the establishment clause

As a historical matter, I think that the men (emphasis on Madison, but the FF generally) who wrote and approved the establishment clause would disagree with you.
posted by gd779 at 11:17 AM on October 5, 2001


Certainly they have the right to believe as they choose but should they, as REPRESENTATIVES, publicly flaunt a belief system that may not be representative of their constituency?

I agree with you, but that is conditioned on the word 'flaunt'. I object to proselytizing one’s faith or to behaving as if there is no other respectable belief system than one’s own. The former is hard to find in American politics; thankfully, most Americans, no matter how much they agree with the proselytizer, get uncomfortable with that. The latter, however, crops up every once in awhile among politicians and other leaders. I acknowledge that a lot, but not all, of people who have deeply-held religious beliefs feel that their system is the penultimate and other systems are sadly misguided. I think that representatives of the people have a responsibility to keep this component of their beliefs largely to themselves. That’s the respect part.
I am a Buddhist and I didn’t have a problem with the service in the National Cathedral; I thought it was very balanced, touching and appropriate. I thought it was great that driving around my neighborhood that Sunday was tough because of all the traffic around the churches and temples in my area (I took the dog to a park – my concept of spiritual connection). I think it’s wonderful that at times like this and in normal times that people have faith in something. But I think that any religious expression in which people cannot effectively ‘opt out’ is inappropriate, especially in public places.
I had a recreational hockey game the Saturday after the attack and it was agreed upon to have a moment of silence before the game. Fine – that’s very non-denominational – very Buddhist actually. The problem was, one guy could only stand it for 2 seconds and started a prayer. This is where I started to get uncomfortable, but what could I do? Finally, he ended it with a plea to Jesus, which is where I became pretty sure I wasn’t the only one who didn’t pray that way. I can handle it once because I like my teammates a lot; I think the prayer guy and a couple others who pray on the ice after every game are praying for me too, and it couldn’t hurt. Besides, the nice thing about being Buddhist is we don’t have to worry about pissing God off by not worshipping properly. But the point is, there was no way to effectively recluse myself from this without being a weenie. And this was just a hockey game, not school or work, or even government office where social relationships are so complicated.
Religious expression by political leaders (or any leaders) is a slippery slope and I, for one, am glad that we as Americans are tending toward rewarding modesty in its use. It is too easy for non-denominational moments to become denominational, even with the most innocent of intents.

As a historical matter, I think that the men (emphasis on Madison, but the FF generally) who wrote and approved the establishment clause would disagree with you.

Probably they would. However, keep in mind that they were only working with consensus among what we would consider fairly liberal Protestant groups. The biggest threat then would have been someone leading a class in ‘Hail Mary, full of grace..’ I daresay that the fact that the closest thing we have to a national statement of faith is being ‘one nation under God’ indicates that they couldn’t agree on anything more precise even back then. It’s much more complicated now. I can just see them throwing their hands up in the air when we Buddhists respectfully request to post the Four Noble Truths next to the Ten Commandments.
posted by dness2 at 8:18 PM on October 5, 2001


Why shouldn't someone feel threatened by the idea that makers of important decisions routinely seek guidance from an invisible superman? History -- recent history -- demonstrates that the answers you get back can justify anything at all. This doesn't frighten you?


Well, lets compared the contributions to society in science and the arts of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany and China to those of the United States and Western Europe. Seems like the invisible superman is doing pretty well...
posted by ParisParamus at 11:28 PM on October 5, 2001


Certainly they have the right to believe as they choose but should they, as REPRESENTATIVES, publicly flaunt a belief system that may not be representative of their constituency?

I think the sincerity of the REPRESENTATIVES in tapping that which inspires and gives the courage takes precedence. Besides, we have a republic, not a democracy.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:31 PM on October 5, 2001


« Older Find the terrorist....  |  He's (his) back!... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments