╌>

House speaker mansplains what Thomas Jefferson really meant by church and state separation

  
Via:  Devangelical  •  last year  •  71 comments

By:   Carl Gibson

House speaker mansplains what Thomas Jefferson really meant by church and state separation
During a recent interview, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) suggested that the founders' intent to separate church and state has been widely misunderstood and that government leaders should more openly express their faith in their work.NBC News reported Tuesday that Johnson called the separation of...

Sponsored by group The Reality Show

The Reality Show

I urge anyone that wants to learn about the media messages that ultra religious/nationalist extremists are providing to mentally defective americans, to search salem, townhall, or alliance defending freedom online. this is yet another small right wing minority group that thinks that only they know what's best for everyone and should run the US.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


During a recent interview, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) suggested that the founders' intent to separate church and state has been widely misunderstood and that government leaders should more openly express their faith in their work.

NBC News reported Tuesday that Johnson called the separation of church and state — which Thomas Jefferson called for in a letter to church leaders — a "misnomer." He added that the phrase wasn't in the U.S. Constitution, even though the First Amendment's establishment clause is widely interpreted as the founders' belief that the government should be seen as separate from any religious institution.

"What [Jefferson] was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn't want principles of faith to have influence on our public life," Johnson said on CNBC's Squawk Box. "It's exactly the opposite."

"[The founders] knew that it would be important to maintain our system," Rep. Johnson continued. "And that's why I think we need more of that — not an establishment of any national religion — but we need everybody's vibrant expression of faith because it's such an important part of who we are as a nation."

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, however, President Jefferson alluded specifically to the First Amendment, saying he had "sovereign reverence" for the establishment clause that effectively built "a wall of separation between Church & State."

"I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights," Jefferson wrote.

Johnson's argument also contradicts fourth US President James Madison, who once wrote a comprehensive argument against government endorsement of religion in a 1785 document dubbed "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments." According to the Center for American Progress, Madison wrote this in response to proposed legislation in Virginia dubbed "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion."

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Madison wrote.

Prior to being elected to Congress in 2016, Johnson was an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund (now the Alliance Defending Freedom), and frequently argued for increased religious presence in public schools.

"The Bible is and should be an appropriate course of study in our public schools," Johnson wrote in a 2007 op-ed. "Because it is the most widely read, widely published, most influential book in all of history, censoring it from the classroom is as unwise as it is unnecessary."

In 2019, Johnson posted a statement to his official Congressional website blasting Democrats for omitting the phrase "so help me God" while swearing in witnesses before a committee hearing. He suggested the omission was an intentional gambit of "cultural Marxism" and that removing references to God "traces back to communist ideology.


Red Box Rules

Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed. Any use of the phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" or the TDS acronym in a comment will be deleted.  Any use of the term "Brandon", or any variation thereof, when referring to President Biden, will be deleted.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1  seeder  devangelical    last year

I don't think I need to remind thumpers that their demigod trump has previously made threats against political opponents acceptable, and that he's free from personal responsibility or accountability if someone acts upon them.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  devangelical @1    last year

super xtian, maga mike johnson endorses trump yesterday. let that blatant xtian hypocrisy sink in.

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
1.1.1  fineline  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

I wonder if a sound beating would convince him otherwise. Let him, or any of his ilk, show the validity of their claim of righteousness.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1.1    last year

How can anybody claim to be a Christian and a Trump supporter at the same time?

Trump is the epitome of evil.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @1.1.2    last year

These freakshows (check out some freakshow dominionist named Garlow that Johnson has a relationship with and who also has endorsed the former 'president').  This freakshow Garlow believes that God put the former 'president' in office and they want to keep him there.  They also believe Biden and Harris are satan and the anti-christ.  I think they are living in the world of PD&D+delusion like the majority of the cult of the former 'president'

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    last year

sounds like f'n dominionists fell off each of those 7 mountains and landed on their heads...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.4    last year

My stomach was turning as I was reading about the association between these freaks and how these freaks want to take over the world.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
1.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    last year

[]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
1.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.5    last year

[]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
1.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @1    last year

Pretty sure that Jefferson was warning us about Trump, Johnson, MTG, Boebert, etc, etc, etc.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @1.2    last year

could be, but no worries, the constitution provides americans a permanent solution to christo-fascism.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
1.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @1.2    last year

[]

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     last year

He is living in a parallel universe.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3  evilone    last year

"God has given us a miracle in the election of Congressman Michael Johnson to this position. He's a godly man, raised up for such a time as this," [Paster Dutch] Sheets said in his Oct. 27 " Give Him 15 " daily prayer broadcast. "I do not know him, but have several friends who do, who attest to his qualifications, integrity and heart for the Lord."

Sheets is a leading figure among a faction of once-fringe Christian evangelical and Pentecostal leaders affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, an ideology that has existed for decades on the fringes of the religious right.

NAR apostles and prophets, as NAR leaders often refer to themselves, ultimately want to end or weaken the separation of church and state. Many embrace a concept known as "the Seven Mountains mandate" which says Christians have a duty to God to take control of the seven pillars of society: business, education, entertainment, family, government, media and religion.

The speaker has affiliated himself with some of Sheets' ideological allies in the NAR movement, including Pastor Jim Garlow. He hosts regular World Prayer Network livestreams in which Johnson has been a frequent guest. In an   Aug. 9 broadcast, Garlow said Johnson "ranks up there in the top 1 percentile" in Congress and has "worked with us very closely."

Johnson, in turn, praised Garlow. "I'm so grateful for the ministry and your faithfulness. It's a great encouragement to me and others who are serving in these sometimes rocky corners of the Lord's vineyard."

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  evilone @3    last year

only a matter of time before a past child molestation victim of his turns up. even money on preteen genders, so far...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1    last year

I was thinking a closet full of dead hookers or something but that sounds more likely.  What scum.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    last year

If history is any clue, both you and Dev are both right

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1    last year

His stepford wife is some kind of 'christian counselor' and nuttier than a fruitcake, like him

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
3.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    last year
I was thinking a closet full of dead hookers

Wow, I have to say that is something I have never thought about.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.1.5    last year

It’s funny were some minds go.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.7  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    last year

Far right wingers do seem to have a whole bunch of walk-in closets in their past/present.

Fuck their hypocrisy.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.8  seeder  devangelical  replied to  cjcold @3.1.7    last year

anti-religion is what the AR on your rifle stands for now...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1.9  seeder  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    last year

she's probably the reason he was on a religious crusade bender to close that strip club in shreveport. he probably rescued her from one when she was a college co-ed.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.10  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @3.1.8    last year

The AR designation stands for Armalite Rifle. The company that invented it back in the 1950s.

So glad that mine is much newer and fault free.

Hit a 10" disc at 125 yards rapid fire most every shot.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.11  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @3.1.10    last year

Scares the hell out of the deer and they tend to leave my fruit tree orchard alone.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @3.1    last year

Check out this freak's relationship with another freakshow, another whackjob christian dominionist named Garlow.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    last year

He would be one of the first in line to complain about the 1619 Project as being "fake history", and then he goes and creates some fake history of his own. 

Christian Nationalism is not a figment of liberals imagination, it is a real movement that wants the US to be ruled entirely by religious (Christian) precepts. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

... over my dead body.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @4.1    last year

Mine, too.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  devangelical @4.1    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.1    last year

Mine three!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @4    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
4.2.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @4.2    last year

Perhaps two friends…

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
4.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  afrayedknot @4.2.1    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
5  SteevieGee    last year

Has anybody here noticed that whenever a country is run by religious leaders as a theocracy they are always shitholes"?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  devangelical  replied to  SteevieGee @5    last year

not for the self proclaimed self righteous...

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  SteevieGee @5    last year

Why, yes! I have noticed that! The theocrats don't believe in science and the only the technology they embrace is that which they can use to control the masses. Forget vaccines and real medical treatment. Those will be replaced by prayers and faith healing.

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
5.2.1  fineline  replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2    last year

And a hefty donation to the church of their choice!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Participates
5.3  Thrawn 31  replied to  SteevieGee @5    last year

Yep, every (without exception) theocratic nation sucks shit. All they ever lead in is human rights abuses, and poverty. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.4  cjcold  replied to  SteevieGee @5    last year
whenever a country

No matter the religion.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Professor Silent
5.4.1  SteevieGee  replied to  cjcold @5.4    last year

Yeah, it seems like all religions consider themselves to be superior to all other religions.  They're all wrong.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6  Trout Giggles    last year
"What [Jefferson] was explaining is they did not want the government to encroach upon the church — not that they didn't want principles of faith to have influence on our public life," Johnson said on CNBC's Squawk Box. "It's exactly the opposite."

Can you say prayers and Bible readings in public schools?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @6    last year
Can you say prayers and Bible readings in public schools?

They sure did back in my day! Didn't take.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
7  Drinker of the Wry    last year

The First Amendment has two provisions concerning religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from "establishing" a religion . The precise definition of "establishment" is unclear. Historically, it meant prohibiting state-sponsored churches, such as the Church of England.

Today, what constitutes an "establishment of religion" is often governed under the three-part test set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state .

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please , so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Sometimes the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause come into conflict. The federal courts help to resolve such conflicts, with the Supreme Court being the ultimate arbiter.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8  Drinker of the Wry    last year

[]

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
8.1  George  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    last year

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  George @8.1    last year

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.1    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
8.1.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.1.2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.1.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Right Down the Center @8.1.3    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8    last year

Does your link refer to, specifically, what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the separation of church and state ?  Cause that is the topic. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2    last year

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2    last year

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2    last year
Cause that is the topic. 

No, actually the topic is Mike Johnson’s interpretation and few comments (that remain un-deleted) directly address that.  I mistakenly thought that the courts interpretation might be of some use to those that actually care about the topic.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.2.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.2    last year

The seeded article is clearly referring to the Founding Fathers interpretation. 

People who want to diverge from the topic are always possibly subject to deletion. You win some you lose some. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.6    last year

During a recent interview, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) suggested that the founders' intent to separate church and state has been widely misunderstood and that government leaders should more openly express their faith in their work.”

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
8.2.8  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @8.2.6    last year

[deleted]

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Silent
8.2.9  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @8.2.7    last year
that government leaders should more openly express their faith in their work.

Why?  Are they being elected to overturn the US government from a secular government into their brand of theocracy?

What would make their goals anything different from the Ayatollah in Iran?  

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8.2.10  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.9    last year

Hey darlin, fascism is fascism no matter what direction it comes from.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
8.2.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  cjcold @8.2.10    last year

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.2.12  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @8.2.9    last year
?  Are they being elected to overturn the US government from a secular government into their brand of theocracy?

Not by me, I a lifelong atheist.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Silent
9  mocowgirl    last year

From the little bit I just read of Johnson's history, he appears to be a run of the mill religious zealot.  Therefore, he likely has never bothered to acquaint himself with Jefferson's life and Jefferson's editing of the Bible which eliminated the miracles and make Jesus a human preacher/teacher.  

Jefferson had to deal with condemnation by religious zealots like Johnson.  Is there really any doubt what Jefferson meant by separation of church and state if a person actually reads about Jefferson's words and actions?

Who, in today's world, wants to overthrow the US secular government and turn it into a theocracy?  What would they gain?  What would we lose?

Why Thomas Jefferson Rewrote the Bible Without Jesus' Miracles and Resurrection | HISTORY

Made for his private use and kept secret for decades, Jefferson’s 84-page Bible was the work of a man who spent much of his life grappling with and doubting religion.

Prepared near the end of the ex-president’s life, the   Jefferson Bible , as it is now known, included no signs of Jesus’s divinity. In two volumes,   The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth   and   The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,   Jefferson edited out biblical passages he considered over the-top or that offended his Enlightenment-era sense of reason. He left behind a carefully condensed vision of the Bible—one that illustrated his own complex relationship with Christianity.

The book was kept private for a few reasons. Jefferson himself believed that a person’s religion was between them and their god. Religion is “a matter between every man and his maker, in which no other, & far less the public, [has] a right to intermeddle,” he   wrote   in 1813.

Jefferson’s editorial work happened in a United States that was deeply rooted in state-sponsored religion. Though many emigrants had come to America to flee religious persecution, laws about religious practice were part of pre-Revolutionary life. Even after the founding of the United States and the ratification of the First Amendment, states   used   public funds to pay churches and passed laws upholding various tenets of Christianity for over a century after the passage of the Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, for example, didn’t   disestablish   its official state religion, Congregationalism, until 1833.

Jefferson, a believer in rational thought and self-determination, had long spoken out against such laws while keeping his own views on religion fiercely private. In 1786, he wrote   a Virginia law   forbidding the state from compelling anyone to attend a certain church or persecuting them for their religious beliefs. The law   unseated   the Anglican Church as the official church of Virginia. Jefferson was so proud of his accomplishment that he told his heirs he wanted it   inscribed   on his tombstone, along with his authorship of the Declaration of Independence and his founding of the University of Virginia.

During his political career, Jefferson’s religious views—or lack thereof—drew fire from his fellow colonists and citizens. The Federalists charged him with atheism and rebellion against Christianity during the vicious 1800 election. Among them was Theodore Dwight, a journalist who claimed that Jefferson’s election would shoo in the end of Christianity itself. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced, the air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, the nation black with crimes,” he   prophesied .

Jefferson continued to wrestle with his own views on Christianity after his presidential term ended. His personal correspondence often dealt with religion and religious freedom, and in 1820, when he was 77 years old, he began excising the portions of the New Testament he found unnecessary.

“Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor,”   writes   historian Edwin S. Gaustad, “Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus’ role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer.” Jefferson didn’t intend for the Bible to be read by others, Gaustad   notes . “He composed it for himself,” he writes. “He cherished the diamonds.”
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Silent
9.1  mocowgirl  replied to  mocowgirl @9    last year

The care that Jefferson took in crafting his Bible is interesting.

When Thomas Jefferson rewrote the Bible | America Magazine

To refer to the book’s “craft” is not a schmaltzy way of describing Jefferson’s work in compiling  The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth . Sometime in the second decade of the 19th century, Jefferson began slicing up Greek, Latin, French and English volumes of the New Testament in order to glue certain Scripture passages into a book he bound and used for personal devotion over the last six years of his life. The Jefferson Bible is a work of craftsmanship, “made of twelve types of paper, ten varieties of ink (six in the printed matter and four in the handwritten notes), two adhesives, threading of both linen and silk, and goatskin leather.”

Peter Manseau, the curator of American religious history at the Smithsonian, offers his definitive description of Jefferson’s peculiar book toward the end of his account of the work’s reception: “Jefferson did edit and arrange verses from the Gospels to craft a unified account of the life and teachings of Jesus with which he [Jefferson himself] could agree, and which would comport with the dictates of reason. No good faith reckoning with the book itself could lead to any other conclusion.”

Jefferson chose each word. Each cut-and-paste of Scripture, including the slicing off of parts of verses, represented a choice, a deliberation that reflected his understanding of Jesus as a man of the Enlightenment—and his sharp dismissal of anything that seemed to violate the laws of nature or communicate claims for Jesus’ divinity.

Clearly, Jefferson saw the Gospels in exactly the same way—a jumble where sublime order should be. And, likewise, Jefferson made excavations into the Evangelists’ heap of words and tried to create a portrait of a rather human Jesus devoid of bluster and religious longings.

 “Time and again, Jesus indicates that he might be able to perform a miracle of some kind, and then does nothing. While this no doubt made him more acceptable in Enlightenment circles, one imagines it would have made Jesus far less popular in Galilee.” Manseau continues, “He may have imagined his  Life and Morals  as scripture shorn of all its unreasonable elements, but Jefferson’s is a hard gospel. The blind do not see; the lame do not walk; the multitudes will remain hungry if loaves and fishes must be multiplied to feed them.”
 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @9.1    last year

Seems divinity has always been the question.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Masters Guide
10  Right Down the Center    last year

[]

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
11  Hal A. Lujah    last year

The Christian God (or any god for that matter) could easily settle this eternal argument once and for all by simply showing us it exists.  Don’t hold your breath.  It. Does. Not. Exist.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Silent
11.1  mocowgirl  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11    last year
It. Does. Not. Exist.

But the con artists who created the gods did exist and unfortunately the con man who can still successfully peddle their brand of bullshit still do exist.

If the Armageddon crowd had enough power, they would be advocating to use nukes to bring back their Savior for their get out of dying card known as the "rapture".

Some religious belief systems are a threat to human existence.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.2  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11    last year

Who is arguing?

 
 

Who is online




Kavika
Dismayed Patriot
Bob Nelson


188 visitors