Join 3,554 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Faked out of her headscarf. . .
September 24, 2004 3:53 PM   Subscribe

Andrea Armstrong wants to play basketball. She is also a muslim, and wishes to observe traditional muslim attire for a woman of the faith. Intolerance ensues. (A link from my local paper to an Orlando Sentinel story, in that this woman is from Oregon.)
posted by Danf (69 comments total)

 
Her crime isn't that she wants to play basketball and still adhere to Muslim beliefs and practices. Her crime is that she expects a sport to acquiesce to her personal needs and beliefs. Though the hate mail she got is completely unwarranted.

You want to play, wear the uniform that everyone is wearing, you don't want to wear the uniform then you don't play. Pretty simple.

The slope gets very slippery indeed if religious exceptions are made.
posted by fenriq at 4:10 PM on September 24, 2004


Oh, bull. Would these same people object to, say, a male college basketball player wearing a yarmulka? Would you, fenriq?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:16 PM on September 24, 2004


What bugs me about religion-based uniform exceptions is this: how is "my 'beliefs' say I should dress so and so" a stronger argument than "my personal preference is to dress so and so"? A neater and more elegant solution, it seems to me, is to have a team 'style' rather than a uniform: say, green with gold trimmings, with a gold player number not smaller than six inches high displayed in at least one place on each of the front and back of the player. The point of a team uniform is so that spectators, and to a lesser extent players, can tell who's on what side, and this is still achieved. And all the nonsense would go away. (Apart from a brief rain of other nonsense as traditionalists whine about how the team always used to wear the same clothes and how 'cos that's how it always used to be that's how it oughta stay 'cos change is baa aa aa aad ... but that won't last, it never does.)

This goes more generally too, I think - most things that people want to be allowed to do on religious grounds are things that people in general might as well be allowed to do, because they're harmless. And if the thing in question is not harmless, then a religious exception ought not be granted either, until such time as the deity itself turns up and insists on it.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:18 PM on September 24, 2004


A yarmulka is slightly different than full length robes, EB.

Besides, the definition of uniform is that everyone looks the same so you can tell who's on which team.

On Preview: what aeschenkarnos (thanks for the finger workout!) said.
posted by fenriq at 4:20 PM on September 24, 2004


As for the yarmulke, if it keeps falling off in the course of play, the coach ought to have a chat to the player--just the same as the coach would talk to a player who kept tripping over--about whether wearing the yarmulke or playing on the team was more important to him. Or else, can he come up with some way--glue, for example--of keeping the thing on? Because that would be something that actually affects the game, as opposed to merely the look of the thing.

This is another danger of religious exceptions: it can grant people a free pass out of rational questioning of their behavior.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:24 PM on September 24, 2004


A yarmulka is slightly different than full length robes, EB.

Who the hell mentioned robes? The article that I read said that she was going to wear pants, sleeves, and a head covering.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:25 PM on September 24, 2004


What mr_roboto said. I don't see there being any question of this affecting play.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:26 PM on September 24, 2004


we really should simply stop tolerating religion altogether. including sports.
posted by quonsar at 4:28 PM on September 24, 2004


Who has ever seen a Wimbledon champ or a Manchester United striker in a Salwar Kameez? Ever seen an Olympic swimming gold medallist in a burqa?

I'll bet that there's been a world class sportsman that wore a yarmulka. Even more that wear crucifixes - and the most don't wear anything like that, because they get in the way. This is not an issue for serious sportsfolk - they just wanna win.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:33 PM on September 24, 2004


A yarmulka is slightly different than full length robes, EB.

Nope, exactly the same. It taints with religion an arena that has been
pretty much free of it (on a first approximation, or so I hope.)

it can grant people a free pass out of rational questioning of their behavior

Indeed. Just say you're a born again and you absolved of anything.
An other one to have it your way all the time is "patriotism".
posted by NewBornHippy at 4:39 PM on September 24, 2004


You want to play, wear the uniform that everyone is wearing, you don't want to wear the uniform then you don't play. Pretty simple.

If only the world were such a reasonable, well-delineated place!

The bailiff at the court nearest my college (where I appeared frequently) permitted kaffiyehs and turbans in court, but he always made me remove my Red Sox hat. When he asserted that the headdresses were "part of their culture", I explained that a baseball hat was part of my culture. Then I asked him why chose to embrace foreign culture while repressing mainstream culture.

When he told me that he that the judge would love to jail me for contempt, I cowardly acquiesced.
posted by trharlan at 4:41 PM on September 24, 2004


It taints with religion an arena that has been
pretty much free of it (on a first approximation, or so I hope.)


Are you fucking kidding me?!? Your standard American athlete evokes The Lord Jesus Christ at the drop of a hat. It's common to see college and professional athletes wearing crucifixes, and religious tattoos are becoming increasingly prevalent. Prayer on the playing field, both prior to events and in celebration of successful plays, is common. God is all the fuck over American sports.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:45 PM on September 24, 2004


Was Cassius Clay called a terrorist?

In any regard, if she wants to sweat like the dickens, by all means. But man, some people are just fucking idiots. White American Christian male sports fans: guess what? You're already the minority. And the terrorists are coming to kill you, specifically, as you return home from your actuarial job in St. Petersburg and spend the night parked in front of the TV as ESPN blares for hours, with just a little detour to Skinemax to see if there's any titty. I CAN HATE.
posted by solistrato at 4:45 PM on September 24, 2004


Was Cassius Clay called a terrorist?
I believe he was called a "communist", which was the preferred derogatory term of the time.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:51 PM on September 24, 2004


I think we should just go back to shirts vs. skins.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:53 PM on September 24, 2004


I believe he was called a "communist", which was the preferred derogatory term of the time.

Ah yes. I had forgotten the preferred fear-based label of the time. Thanks for the reminder.

I'm waiting for someone to blame this on Title IX.
posted by solistrato at 4:57 PM on September 24, 2004


THIS IS ALL THE FAULT OF TITLE IX!!!!!!
posted by mr_roboto at 4:59 PM on September 24, 2004


God is all the fuck over American sports.

OK, I didn't know. I don't watch sports and don't practice any
stadium or team sports.

Bummer, then.
posted by NewBornHippy at 5:07 PM on September 24, 2004


She's asking to be respected yet will not respect others.
posted by magullo at 5:09 PM on September 24, 2004


That's right. It was very disrespectful of her to be a white woman who converted to Islam. So thoughtless towards all those bigots out there...

OK. That's just snark. Who, exactly, will she not respect?
posted by mr_roboto at 5:18 PM on September 24, 2004


Queen Kamehameha wants to rollerball in a mumu.
posted by jfuller at 5:24 PM on September 24, 2004


What's she done that disrespectful to others, magullo? She used the existing NCAA process to request a uniform exception. When it was declined, she chose not to play rather than to force the issue. Sounds pretty damned respectul to me.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:25 PM on September 24, 2004


Unless the added clothing is going to give her some sort of Super-Kung-Fu-Micheal-Jordan-Basketball-Powers, I don't see what the problem would be, as long as she wore the team jersey over it.
posted by falconred at 5:28 PM on September 24, 2004


When it was declined, she chose not to play rather than to force the issue.

Was it declined? My impression from the article was that she was simply harassed out of playing by the "fans".
posted by mr_roboto at 5:35 PM on September 24, 2004


Mr_roboto, I sit corrected, the robes were from another article I was reading and cross filed the info in my brain.
posted by fenriq at 5:41 PM on September 24, 2004


magullo: you're asking to be respected, yet you will not respect others.
posted by jpoulos at 5:55 PM on September 24, 2004


Man, religion can get you an exception to any thing.

I'm a spiritual naturalist, and as such, I demand to play naked. Don't infringe on my religious convictions, bigots!!
posted by SweetJesus at 5:55 PM on September 24, 2004


I think that many people view adult conversion to Islam as having a neurotic and exhibitionist subtext (compare the past attitudes to Yusuf Islam and Muhammad Ali) and so extend less sympathy than they would to someone born into that religion. I think everyone would have been far more accommodating if this had been about a a newly-discovered basketball prodigy who happened to be Muslim and brought up wearing Islamic dress.
posted by raygirvan at 5:56 PM on September 24, 2004


Ha ha, your intolerence of Muslims has put you on top of the terrorist list of targets! Die South Floridians, die!!!
posted by bargle at 6:16 PM on September 24, 2004


Why can't people wear clothes and play sports anyway? There is a Roman Catholic Nun who is big into triathalons, and she competes practically naked. Have to wonder about that.

Saying that women/girls have to compete practically naked is bring religion into it- it is saying that anyone who believes in modesty (and I think there are plenty of Christians and Jews who would draw the line at many of these uniforms) isn't allowed to play. Oh but wait, if they aren't there, they are invisible... and then we can pretend that the only people who want to play are the people who are... allowed to play!
posted by loafingcactus at 6:25 PM on September 24, 2004


The passion of the athlete.
posted by euphorb at 6:49 PM on September 24, 2004


"I have a problem with the way you people do things, but I demand to be included! Make an exception for me because I'm a unique snowflake!"

The fans shouldn't have been nasty to her, though. She thinks that God created the universe and everything in it AND gives a shit if she wears a scarf. She's obviously mentally ill.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:19 PM on September 24, 2004


You want to play, wear the uniform that everyone is wearing, you don't want to wear the uniform then you don't play.

Yep. Sports teams don't dictate religious dress and religious folk don't get to dictate sports dress. No one is obliged to participate in either.
posted by rushmc at 7:23 PM on September 24, 2004


Let her on the team. Permit her to wear whatever she wants and play a starting position in every game. Who cares what the intolerants think?

Just don't pass her the ball.

Problem solved.
posted by dhoyt at 7:24 PM on September 24, 2004


There are two ways to work this out: 1. shoot anyone wearing a funny hat, (2) let all players play naked or not at all. Rule 2 applies only for women in sports.
I have no objections to ladies playing basketball in any outfits they want to wear. I do, though, draw the line for women's sand volleyball.
posted by Postroad at 7:26 PM on September 24, 2004


There is a Roman Catholic Nun who is big into triathalons, and she competes practically naked. Have to wonder about that.


Sports uniforms in theory aren't designed to pridefully display the body, they're (again, in theory) designed for ease of movement in whatever way the sport requires the athlete to move.

A nun could be considered perfectly modest in the bathing suit commonly worn by triathletes, because her intent would be honest: to comfortably compete, not to show off her body. But most mainstream Christian faiths put a lot more weight on intent and appropriateness, the spirit of modesty if you will, rather than just focusing on the letter of modesty.

So, Catholic apples and Muslim oranges, really.
posted by padraigin at 7:27 PM on September 24, 2004


Ummm I dont think she would be playing wearing the robe. All she wants is to be able to wear a long sleeve shirt, a trouser and maybe a scarf to cover the head.

I think some people have jumped to the conclusion that she would want to play wearing a "Burka" perhaps.
posted by adnanbwp at 7:31 PM on September 24, 2004


I'm a spiritual naturalist, and as such, I demand to play naked.

That's fine if you're playing with Skins, but, man, it ain't gonna fly if you're playing for Shirts.
posted by eriko at 7:36 PM on September 24, 2004


She should be permitted to wear the attire specified in the Koran for women who play basketball.
posted by kindall at 7:48 PM on September 24, 2004


The article mentions that uniform exceptions have been made for years, but does not mention the circumstances. It would be valuable to know more about these past examples to see what precedent, if any, exists on religious clothing.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:10 PM on September 24, 2004


How could it possibly hurt anybody if she wears pants and sleeves under a uniform and a scarf on her head? She's not a stripper, she's a basketball player. Bunch of kneejerk intolerant fuckwits.
posted by callmejay at 8:36 PM on September 24, 2004


callmejay, the response here is pretty surprising and disapointing, don't you think? It's an interesting combination of circumstances that can nearly eradicate MeFi's oft-noted liberalism.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:49 PM on September 24, 2004


People who's religion dictates that they dress a certain way are fucked...
posted by wfrgms at 9:31 PM on September 24, 2004


I'm no expert on Islam, but I did spend this summer in Morocco while taking courses on Islam and Arabic.

I take issue with the article's comment that "the Islamic code calls for women's skin to be covered." Perhaps the particular code she chooses to follow requires for all but the face and hands to be covered, but the Qur'an says only to "dress modestly."

In Morocco I saw Muslim women in jalabas with scarves and equally pious women in jeans and a short-sleeved shirt, sans scarf. Just like with the Bible, there isn't a universal, uniform interpretation of the Qur'an.
posted by jennak at 9:36 PM on September 24, 2004


EB: It's disappointing, but I'm no longer surprised. Most of the folks here seem to be basically liberal and tolerant but have some big blind spots. One of them is shown here and in many other threads related to religion. I've been guilty of that one myself. Perhaps my response here is a little hypocritical, but I can't believe otherwise rational people would be in favor of banning a woman from NCAA basketball for wanting to wear pants, sleeves, and a headscarf because of her religious beliefs. When people use religion to trespass against other peoples' rights, I'm first in line to decry it. When they ask for reasonable accomodation for their deepest beliefs, however, I think a pluralistic society must do all it can to grant it.
posted by callmejay at 9:40 PM on September 24, 2004


By the way, for another other huge, disappointing metafilter "liberal" blindspot, see any fat thread.
posted by callmejay at 9:42 PM on September 24, 2004


Yep. And, typically, where in a worldview liberalism gives way, a particularly vicious intolerance arises in its place. It reveals an ugly truth about human nature.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:46 PM on September 24, 2004


dash-slot Who has ever seen a Wimbledon champ or a Manchester United striker in a Salwar Kameez? Ever seen an Olympic swimming gold medallist in a burqa?

Actually, I did see a women's rock-climbing champion from India win the competition wearing white pants, shirtsleves and a headscarf. Beat the American in leggings and a sports bra with 5/10ths of a second to spare.

And actually, the current fashion for Olympic Swimming is a full bodysuit. However, muslim women have participated in the Olympics wearing headscarves. So certainly, there is quite a bit of athletic clothing that can be worn under her jersey and shorts that would be a reasonable compromise. Since many women's basketball players tend to wear mid-thigh spandex shorts under their uniform anyway, I don't see what the deal is with a few extra inches.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:34 PM on September 24, 2004


Would these same people object to, say, a male college basketball player wearing a yarmulka?

Tamir Goodman aka the Jewish Jordan wore a yarmulke when he played for Towson State in Maryland. Also, Harbajan Singh is a Sikh cricket player who is so closely associated with his traditional religious headgear that he acquired the nickname, the Turbanator.
posted by jonp72 at 10:50 PM on September 24, 2004


she's playing with 9 other female players who are wearing "revealing" clothes? I guess covering herself is just about her, and not about how people see females? Because she's right there promoting standard basketball dress even if she's not wearing it.
posted by tomplus2 at 11:37 PM on September 24, 2004


Attitudes towards women and Islam in the context of US college sports, sheeeit, I was expecting a thread bursting with tolerance and understanding.

/snark

Is it a uniform requirement of women's basketball that they have to have bare head, arms and legs?

Or to put it another way, why is she being forced to show more skin than she is comfortable with?
posted by fullerine at 4:36 AM on September 25, 2004


The dress code for most sports is created according to what is culturally acceptable. We don't have naked athletes these days (more's the pity) and we still have some examples of blantantly heterosexual male-dominated bias: beach volleyball.

To all those saying such culture-specific dress-codes have no place in sports: one - those dress codes were created from within a particular culture - white american culture - and likely wouldn't have been created identically in another culture - and two: the NCAA all ready operates a culturally open stance on uniform and is accepting of this diversity.

You've all ready lost the argument for monocultural sports uniforms - the world has moved on - it's inclusive, tolerant and broad-minded.

We're all waiting for you to catch up.
posted by Blue Stone at 4:50 AM on September 25, 2004


When people use religion to trespass against other peoples' rights, I'm first in line to decry it.

But just asking for special treatment is fine? Because a murderer in the desert 1200 years ago said that women were essentially commodities and untrustworthy and therefore have to be covered up?

At what point does the rationale for something become so stupid that you're allowed to say "no"?
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:41 AM on September 25, 2004


Don't respond to the above question with a snark. Seriously, "let her play" folks, when do her requests become so unreasonable that you wouldn't acquiesce to them?
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:43 AM on September 25, 2004


I suppose when the requests actually interfere with any other person's rights, MC. Honestly, who does it hurt if she wears this stuff?

I'm generally sort of split on this kind of thing. On one hand, I think that following a particular religion puts the onus on the devotee to make the appropriate sacrifices, rather than the rest of the world to make sure that no such sacrifices ever have to be made. On the other, I think that accomodations should be made when they don't interfere with anyone else. I just don't see why this particular issue matters to anyone other than the person making the request.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 6:13 AM on September 25, 2004


Uh oh, bligh and callmejay are 'disappointed' in the response from some MeFites. What's with the Ward Cleaver parentalism? "Gee, Ward, Wally and the Beav usually try so hard to please you. Sometimes they start having too much fun and can't catch themselves before they slip up. They're just kids after all!"
posted by crank at 6:51 AM on September 25, 2004


But just asking for special treatment is fine? Because a murderer in the desert 1200 years ago said that women were essentially commodities and untrustworthy and therefore have to be covered up?

She's not asking for any "treatment." She's not asking the NCAA to give her a head scarf at their expense. She's not asking them to broadcast Muslim prayers. She's asking to be allowed to wear more modest clothing.

At what point does the rationale for something become so stupid that you're allowed to say "no"?

Religion is in a separate class. I'm an atheist myself, but I recognize that deeply held religious views are different animal than other views. As long as they don't infringe on others' rights, we should do everything we can to allow their free expression.
posted by callmejay at 6:56 AM on September 25, 2004


I think that following a particular religion puts the onus on the devotee to make the appropriate sacrifices

That says it all right there.
posted by rushmc at 7:13 AM on September 25, 2004


I'm not sure the rationale is what matters when making the decision, but rather, the accommodation. Could an accommodation be made that affects no one else unless they're willing to be affected? If it could, then why not make it? Uniforms in sports basically come in two flavours, 'identify who is on which team' and 'provide appropriate protection / skills boost'. The latter includes things like body suits in swimming and pads in hockey.

If she wore pants and a long sleeved shirt in the team colours, with her number painted on them. Or hell, with the actual shorts and top of the basketball uniform over them, there'd be no chance people would confuse her with a member of the opposite team. Basketball attire doesn't provide much in the way of protection, though it is designed to be loose and unrestrictive. Could she find pants and a top to wear that would allow her the same unrestrained movement? Or at least sufficiently unrestrained movement that she was still competitive enough to make the team?

The only thing about this that I see affecting anyone is off the court, really, in the additional uniform maintenance costs on her school. If they're unwilling to take that on, perhaps she could agree to provide it herself?

I wonder, given the whole nature of this discussion, how people feel about this.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:37 AM on September 25, 2004


I think that following a particular religion puts the onus on the devotee to make the appropriate sacrifices

Yeah, it does. But why must we go out of our way to make it difficult? Would you support a movie theater which didn't allow yarmulkas? Or would you say that the onus is on the Jewish theatergoers to make sacrifices?
posted by callmejay at 7:42 AM on September 25, 2004


Well, while rushmc might think that that particular sentence says it all, I think there's a necessary corollary:

Being a human of goodwill puts the onus on that human to not be an unreasonable jerk about things that don't have the slightest impact on them."
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:10 AM on September 25, 2004


All this blather over a jockette? Sheesh! ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:43 AM on September 25, 2004


I think that following a particular religion puts the onus on the devotee to make the appropriate sacrifices

That says it all right there.


Okay. I'm confused. What, exactly, does it say? That if your faith guides you to certain fairly unintrusive modes of dress, you can't play competitive basketball? It's been mentioned earlier in this thread, but it's worth reiterating that this is basically the same as insisting that basketball players can't wear crosses on the court. (Actually, this is even less prescriptive, in that no contemporary Christian denomination to my knowledge requires its adherents to wear crosses.)

I mean, if this woman (or some Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue) was demanding that all female basketball players adhere to Muslim dress code, then I could understand folks getting bent out of shape. But seriously: would long johns worn under the team uniform and a well-secured headscarf be somehow less in keeping with basketball "tradition" than the assorted stylistic tics of Dennis Rodman?

I'm curious as to what the opponents of this woman's religious basketball attire think about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's decision, 15 years ago, to permit Sikh Mounties to wear their turbans as part of their regulation uniform.

Now, this isn't a perfect analogy, in that the RCMP is a federal agency whose dress code is therefore required to conform to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On the other hand, this was one of Canada's oldest and most iconic institutions adjusting its signature look (quite rightly, to my mind) to accomodate the religious practices of a changing Canada.

And lo, Canada did not descend into Sikh theocracy. You think college basketball can survive a similar shock to its hallowed traditions?
posted by gompa at 10:18 AM on September 25, 2004


seems like the difference between a redneck and some liberals is simply the size of the words and the bank account
posted by pyramid termite at 11:00 AM on September 25, 2004


I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and I can't think of a reason why this girl shouldn't have been allowed to adjust the uniform to conform to her religious beliefs, provided that the alterations posed no danger to herself or any other players. And her own teammates and coaches should have backed her on it, so long as her altered uniform didn't affect the quality of her play.

So there.
posted by padraigin at 11:05 AM on September 25, 2004


Because a murderer in the desert 1200 years ago said that women were essentially commodities and untrustworthy and therefore have to be covered up?

MayorCurley, you make your arguments so much easier to ignore when you couch them in distracting, provocative language like that.
posted by jpoulos at 11:19 AM on September 25, 2004


I'm curious as to what the opponents of this woman's religious basketball attire think about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's decision, 15 years ago, to permit Sikh Mounties to wear their turbans as part of their regulation uniform

A nice thing to do but not required. In general, accommodation to religious belief is a good thing, but not a required thing (though if you're making an accommodation for one faith, you're then obligated to make similarly reasonable accommodations to others). Nobody has any right to special treatment because of their faith, but it's often a simple, harmless courtesy to grant it.

The similar cases in the US dealt with yarmulkes. The ruling came down that the Air Force can indeed tell an observant Jew not to wear his yarmulke while in uniform, since it visibly violates the, well, uniformity of the uniform (while religious jewelry of whatever faith does not, since it's under the uniform). AFAIK most commanders have better sense than to enforce anything as silly as that, though.

I don't think there would have been anything wrong with USF if they'd said "No, our uniform is our uniform. Wear it or quit," but their decision to seek the appropriate dispensation was good.

I think that USF would have been wrong if they'd tried to stop her from, say, wearing a bodysuit under the uniform as the regulations almost certainly don't specify that your skin must be visible. That's imposing a special restriction on someone because of their faith, which is illegitimate. Similarly, I find the recent French banning of headscarves and other religious symbology in public schools offensive, though I don't think simply imposing a uniform would be.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:23 AM on September 25, 2004


Actually, from the post, the comment was about the intolerance that ensued. The taunts, the email, etc. that likened her wish to freely exercise her faith to being a terrorist.

Now, many exceptions are made to athletic uniforms on a daily basis. I would be willing to bet that if you turned to nearly any college game, any conference, or any NBA game, you would see variations on uniforms that either were never "challenged" or were requested and granted. I have seen NBA, university and HS players (male) often play with a T-shirt under their jersey or lycra shorts under their uniforms. Whether it be for comfort or out of modesty, who cares, provided their "uniform" complies with the spirit of teamsmanship (teamspersonship?).

A big "well-done" to the gal for asking, huge "shame on you" to those who made an issue of her faith and not her competence as a player. One might fault her for making an issue of it by quitting the team, but takes us back to the testing of Abraham and other religious persons who refused to deny their faith. Who in this story are being least true to their supposed beliefs: the muslim who steadfastly attempts to follow a tenet of her faith (no matter what we may think of it) or the "Americans" who are supposed to be models of tolerance and inclusion, but instead found it more important to prove their blind bigotry?
posted by charms55 at 6:52 AM on September 26, 2004


She asks everybody to be mindful of her religion, yet she is not willing to be mindful of the existing rules and regulations of the sport.

I'm French in that way: religion has no place in secular activities.

/And that includes not printing "in god we trust" on legal tender
posted by magullo at 7:46 AM on September 27, 2004


« Older When I first saw it I thought, it was fad-freaky T...  |  SmartKlamp... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments