Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
December 05, 2013, 09:53:11 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Science, Culture, & Humanities
The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
Topic: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly (Read 16019 times)
A Declaration of Tolerance: The Edict of Milan in 313 AD
Reply #100 on:
October 26, 2013, 08:29:16 PM »
A declaration of tolerance
In 313 Christians finally won their place in the ancient world with the Edict of Milan.
Mike Aquilina | 25 October 2013
comment 2 | print |
Edict of Milan
This year marks the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan, by which the Emperors Constantine the Great and Licinius established tolerance for Christianity in the Roman Empire. MercatorNet asked Mike Aquilina, an expert in the early history of Christianity, how this momentous step came about, and what relevance it has for the debate on religious freedom today.
MercatorNet: Celebrations have been rather low-key, but this year is the 1700th anniversary of the Edict of Milan in 313. What’s it all about?
Mike Aquilina: What we’re really celebrating is the first appearance of the notion of religious liberty. The so-called Edict -- it may have been a letter -- marked the agreement between Constantine I, who ruled the western lands, and Licinius, who controlled much of the East, to put a stop to the persecution of Christians. They could have presented this in many ways, but they chose to speak in terms of widespread tolerance. "We have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases. This regulation is made that we may not seem to detract from any dignity of any religion." It's safe to say that these were revolutionary ideas, and their influence, at least in Western Christian lands, has been profound.
What was the situation before the Edict?
For two and a half centuries, Christians had endured intermittent persecution, which was occasionally quite intense. Sometimes there were long stretches between the imperial crackdowns. But, even in times of peace, Christians lived with the memory of persecution as a recent unpleasantness. They knew that there was substantial legal precedent for the suppression of the Church and the making of martyrs. They knew that anti-Christian violence, outside the law, probably wouldn’t be punished. In the years leading up to the Edict, the Church had endured the empire’s most thoroughgoing persecution to that point in history.
What motivated Licinius and Constantine to take such a momentous step?
If they’d had Facebook accounts, they could honestly have said, “It’s complicated.” Both men had many motives for their action, and their motives were mixed. Both had family members who were practicing Catholics, and both seem to have had some level of personal interest in the faith, but at this remove it’s hard to say how far that went. They also were shrewd politicians, and they could see which way the wind was blowing. The sociologist Rodney Stark, in his book Cities of God, has demonstrated that, by the time of the Edict, all the empire’s major urban centers had majority- or plurality-Christian populations. The research of Thomas A. Robinson seems to indicate that the rural populations had been similarly Christianized. In every sector of society — military, education, commerce, government — Christians were present and making great contributions. In pragmatic terms: persecution was counter-productive. Why did Constantine and Licinius do what they did? We’ll probably never know. But their reasons were many, varied and, I think, sound.
One of Constantine’s court intellectuals, Lactantius, wrote eloquently in defence of religious freedom – “Torture and piety are quite different things; truth cannot be joined to force or justice to cruelty.” Was he an important influence in shaping religious toleration?
Probably. He was Constantine’s advisor. He tutored Constantine’s son. And he was a bestselling author. He was raised in the traditional Roman religion and served as an advisor to the emperors. Lactantius converted to Christianity as an adult, during a time of persecution, and he suffered for his decision. By the time Constantine raised him from obscurity, he was a respected Christian thinker, an old man who had earned a hearing and could make a sound and sympathetic case for tolerance. His placement seems -- frankly, providential.
So the Edict of Milan didn’t actually make Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire?
No, that came later with Theodosius — in less tolerant times and less tolerant terms.
Afterwards Julian the Apostate tried to reverse the policy of toleration? Did that shape subsequent views of religious freedom?
It certainly shaped subsequent history. Julian banned Christians from teaching in the universities. He used the imperial treasury to bankroll a pagan religion he created in the image and likeness of the Christian Church. It had a hierarchy, Scriptures, liturgy, and institutional charities — all hallmarks of Catholicism. His project failed, as he died young on the battlefield. His successors were Christians who were determined not to let such backsliding happen again. They relied, however, on the methods of Julian rather than Constantine, imposing unity and uniformity by coercive means.
Did the early Fathers of the Church grasp the importance of religious freedom?
They were all over the map. The early apologists argued for it, because they were misunderstood and marginalized. They just wanted a fair hearing. Some later Fathers, in the wake of Julian, wanted to shore up the Church’s position, and so they threw their support behind coercive measures that favored Christianity.
After such a promising start, how did Europe revert to coercion of dissenters and heretics?
Again, it’s complicated. As the first millennium came to an end, the western lands watched with alarm as the east fell to Islam. Western leaders, in Church and state, placed a premium on unity against a common enemy. Muhammad himself was viewed by the Fathers as a Christian heretic, and they make a persuasive case.
Also, as the Empire fell apart, the Church, in many places, became the state. It was the only cultural force with the vision, means, and motives to establish and maintain order. Thank God someone was there to do the job — but it did blur a lot of lines. The west had avoided some of the temptations of the east. In Constantinople, for example, the patriarchs were too often willing instruments of the emperors. In the west, perhaps too often the bishops were the governors — and, as time wore on, the governors became the bishops.
Do you think that the Edict of Milan has any relevance to contemporary debates over the notion of religious freedom?
Peter Leithart argues that Constantine’s view is actually healthier than the Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment schemes, which sometimes display shocking intolerance as they demand the suppression of distinctive doctrines and practices. Constantine’s later edicts -- to the Palestinians and to the Eastern Provincials -- show even more mature doctrine, put sometimes in poetic terms. “Let no one disturb another. Let each man hold fast to that which his soul wishes. Let him make full use of this.”
The truth is that the modern world makes more Christian martyrs per year than the Roman Empire ever did. And even modern democracies are growing increasingly hostile to any religious expression that dissents from government-imposed standards.
I’m watching for the next Lactantius.
Mike Aquilina is a popular author working in the area of Church history, especially patristics, the study of the early Church Fathers. He blogs on early Christianity at FathersOfTheChurch.com
- See more at:
Where are the atheists in the foxholes?
Reply #101 on:
October 31, 2013, 11:57:28 AM »
Obama's AFA Oath Omissions
The End Run on Faith in the Military
By Mark Alexander • October 31, 2013
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian." --George Washington's General Orders (1775)
Officer's Commissioning Bible
Editor's Note: This column is a substantial update on The Patriot Digest report last week regarding the Obama administration's effort to remove "So help me God" from all military oaths.
I began this week as I usually do, with a Monday morning visit to my 90-year-old father, a retired naval aviator and member of the Greatest Generation. He's always interested in current events, especially the latest on what he accurately labels "Obama's socialist effort to nationalize healthcare."
In a discussion with him about my column topic, the real story behind an effort to remove "So help me God" from an oath at the Air Force Academy, he smiled and said, "I have something for you." He disappeared for a minute and returned with a small pocket Bible, which was presented to him at his naval commissioning ceremony 70 years ago. He had come across this little New Testament while cleaning out a drawer, and he set it aside knowing I would appreciate it.
And appreciate it I do.
On a dedication page prior to the title page, there was a printed inscription from Franklin D. Roosevelt:
"As Commander-in-Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who serve in the armed forces of the United States. Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the Sacred Book words of wisdom, counsel and inspiration. It is a fountain of strength and now, as always, an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul."
This past weekend, you may have heard news reports about the Air Force Academy being pressured to remove "So help me God" from its Cadet Honor Oath.
What you have not heard is that on the page facing the Honor Oath in "Contrails," the Academy's official handbook, "So help me God" has already been removed from the more important Cadet and Officer oaths. (Click to View)
As I first reported last May in "Obama's Frontal Assault on Faith," until 2011, the AFA handbook contained "So help me God" in bold letters after the Cadet and Officer oaths. However, under the watch of former AFA Superintendent, Lt. Gen. Mike Gould (who retired in July 2013), those words were removed from the Class of 2015 handbooks, and are absent in all subsequent year editions of Contrails. (Last we checked, the cadet and officer oaths at the Naval Academy and West Point had not been altered.)
In 2012, when I asked the AFA's Public Affairs Office who had ordered the removal and why, the PAO dodged the question for two days, then on the third request responded tersely that I could file a "Freedom of Information Act" request if I wanted to know anything more. In other words: "Take a hike." (An FOIA for all communications related to this omission is being processed.)
The current challenge to the Cadet Honor Oath wording was filed by ultra-leftist Michael Weinstein by way of his so-called "Military Religious Freedom Foundation" (MRFF). Ostensibly, Weinstein's objection relates to a complaint about a poster that listed the Cadet Honor Oath with its closing words, "So help me God."
But Weinstein's target is much bigger than the AFA Honor Oath. Read on...
Weinstein, who was tapped by Obama earlier this year to "consult" with DoD on faith expression in the military, is little more than a proxy for the Obama regime, a surrogate doing the bidding of the most faith-intolerant administration in the history of our Republic. According to the Washington Post, Weinstein claimed that Christian "proselytizing" is a "national security threat," adding, "What is happening is a spiritual rape. ... It is sedition and treason. It should be punished." 1.
Of course, if any military officer publicly suggested that this all-out attack on religious faith was part of his commander in chief's agenda, they would face a court-martial. However, off the record, I have spoken to many command-level officers who believe this is precisely Obama's aim.
Weinstein, himself an AFA graduate (Class of '77), and author of "One Man's War Against an Evangelical Coup in America's Military," has been an enemy of public faith expression for his whole career. He first sued the Air Force in 2005 for failing to prevent "religious proselytizing," claiming:
"What you've got is a lusty and thriving religious intolerance that is objectively manifesting itself in prejudice and discrimination and is obliterating the First Amendment, civil rights and the US Constitution. There are senior people that view evangelical Christianity at the Air Force Academy the way that you and I would view gravity. Pick up a pen and drop it and it falls on the desk. Well, it just exists, it's gravity."
But U.S. District Judge James Parker dismissed the case, noting:
"No Plaintiff claims to have personally experienced any of the things described under 'Factual Allegations' ... while at the Academy or after leaving the Academy. Not a single Plaintiff has alleged any personal factual situation that has allegedly impinged on that Plaintiff’s constitutional rights since the Plaintiff left the Academy."
Weinstein got little traction for his faith persecutions until Obama's election in 2008, which paved the way for him to become the primary nemesis of faith expression in the military.
Within a month of Obama's inauguration in 2009, Weinstein met with Air Force Chief of Staff Norton A. Schwartz, who was confirmed by the Democrat-controlled Senate on August 12, 2008 (and served until August 10, 2012, when he was replaced by Gen. Mark A. Welsh). Weinstein said that Schwartz "acknowledged that there [was] a problem" regarding religious freedom in the military.
To get a sense of the depth of Weinstein's hatred of our military's faith traditions, later in 2009 he blamed the Fort Hood massacre by Islamist Nidal Malik Hasan on proselytizing by "fundamentalist Christians."
In 2010, the year "So help me God" was removed from the AFA Officer and Cadet oaths, Weinstein said he had developed a cozy relationship with then-AFA
Superintendent Lt. Gen. Mike Gould. Weinstein claimed he and Gould devised a secret codeword to ensure he could have quick access to Gould at any time. "We have our own bat-signal," he boasted. (For the record, I have met Mike Gould through several national security briefings and would have a difficult time believing that he and Weinstein were in collusion.)
That was also the year Weinstein applauded Obama's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which significantly constrained any religious views to the contrary. 2.
In 2011, Weinstein demanded and received an apology from AFA Commandant of Cadets Brig. Gen. Richard Clark for authorizing cadet support of "Operation Christmas Child," which assembles and fills millions of shoeboxes with toys, school supplies and other gifts for impoverished children in 130 countries. Weinstein objected because OCC places a Christian tract in those boxes.
In 2012, Weinstein pressed the Pentagon to end the sale of military-themed Holman Christian Standard Bibles, claiming they were a "national security threat."
Clearly, Weinstein and the MRFF are dedicated to freedom from religion, not our constitutionally enshrined freedom of religion.
So, what is the Obama/MRFF strategy at the Air Force Academy?
Given that AFA administrators have already removed "So help me God" from the cadet and officer oaths in 2011 -- for reasons the AFA will not disclose -- if Weinstein pursues legal action, it will be difficult for the AFA to argue for retaining "So help me God" in any oath. And, if Weinstein "wins" a legal challenge against the AFA, he will undoubtedly pursue "domino effect" rulings to amending oaths in the other Service Academies -- which will inevitably cascade throughout the service branches.
My colleague, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William "Jerry" Boykin, says of the administration's effort to oppress religious expression, "The very troops who defend our religious freedom are at risk of having their own taken away. The worst thing we can do is stop Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, especially the chaplains, from the free exercise of their faith."
At present, AFA leadership is attempting to sidestep Weinstein's complaint by suggesting the inclusion of "So help me God" in the Honor Code will be voluntary. Lt. Gen. Michelle D. Johnson, Academy Superintendent, stated:
"We work to build a culture of dignity and respect, and that respect includes the ability of our cadets, Airmen and civilian Airmen to freely practice and exercise their religious preference -- or not. So, in the spirit of respect, cadets may or may not choose to finish the Honor Oath with 'So help me God.'"
But Weinstein is not content with that solution, and responded:
"The Air Force Academy is a constitutional train wreck when it comes to religious rights and freedoms. We wouldn't trust them to get the word out on an organizational picnic, much less something of this magnitude. [Tying the oath] to a religious test violates the no-establishment clause of the Constitution."
But the fact is, "So help me God" is already elective in all military and civilian oaths. While 5 U.S.C. § 3331 specifies the inclusion of those words, it is understood that this inclusion is subordinate to our Constitution's Article VI prohibition of any religious test for public office. However, it is no longer elective in the AFA Cadet and Officer oaths because the words have already been omitted!
Dr. Hans Mueh (Brig. Gen., Ret.), who was tasked in 1984 with formulating the Honor Oath, said, "To add more seriousness to the oath, we decided to mirror the commissioning oath and add the words, 'so help me, God.'" But again, the words have already been omitted!
However, according to the most recent Air Force Instruction issued by the Secretary of the Air Force, section 1.4. Oath, subsection 1.4.1 Enlistment Oath and 1.4.2 Oath of Office (Commissioning Oath) both specify "So help me God." Further, the SecAF orders, "Compliance with this publication is mandatory."
At best, the AFA is not in compliance with the SecAF's mandate regarding oaths, and any military officers who approved the oath alterations are likely subject to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 92 (IX), "Violation of a Lawful General Regulation/Order."
At worst, somebody has provided Weinstein with a layup, a legal "gimme," which he can ultimately parlay into the removal of "So help me God" from every military oath.
So the question remains, who ordered the removal of "So help me God" from the 2011 cadet handbook, and why?
The Patriot is pursuing an answer to that question -- and we will not back off until we get the truth.
Obama's surrogates may attempt to pin blame on a committee of AFA officers and cadets that reviews Contrails each year for any minor changes to protocol or training, but there is little chance that a major change such as the altering of the officer and cadet oaths would have been the work of this committee -- or that the PAO would have deferred to an FOIA -- or that AFA leadership would be addressing "So help me God" in the Honor Oath without noticing its absence in the Officer and Cadet oaths.
Frankly, AFA leadership may have been waiting -- and hoping -- for a third-party objection in order to avoid rebuke from their CINC. If so, their wait is over.
In the meantime, Obama and his Leftist cadres should heed this formative advice from President George Washington: "Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths..."
1. (Under the pretense of "religious tolerance," Barack Obama's administration has been quietly advancing his mandate to remove all expression or manifestation of faith, particularly Christianity, from government forums -- first and foremost, the U.S. military, where he has the most direct authority. His civilian "leaders" at DoD have ramped up that eradication, even threatening UCMJ charges against military personnel whose expression of faith might be interpreted as "proselytizing." Eradicating references to God in military oaths is part of Left's larger objective to replace Rule of Law with the rule of men -- because the former is predicated on the principle of Liberty "endowed by our Creator." Obama's administrators constantly look for ways to undermine Rule of Law by driving wedges between our Liberty and its inherent foundational endowment.)
2. (One of Obama's earliest campaign promises was to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" proscription against open homosexuality in the military ranks. On December 22, 2010, Obama signed that repeal after it had been passed by his outgoing NeoCom House majority and seconded by his Demo-controlled Senate, just weeks before Tea Party Republicans, who decimated the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, took over the House. At the signing, Obama declared, "This law will strengthen our national security and uphold the ideals that our fighting men and women risk their lives to defend.")
Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis
Publisher, The Patriot Post
Last Edit: October 31, 2013, 11:59:50 AM by Crafty_Dog
The judiciary and free speech
Reply #102 on:
October 31, 2013, 12:48:06 PM »
Re: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, & Assembly
Reply #103 on:
November 01, 2013, 12:12:20 PM »
"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths…" George Washington
Another Victory for Liberty
Earlier this week, we reported on the third instance in which military training curriculums identified Christians and Tea Party organizations as "hate groups." Once is an isolated incident and twice might be coincidence, but three times is a pattern.
However, we note that these briefings were not DoD-authorized briefs, but prepared by local personnel who obviously are Obamaphiles.
One of those briefings took place at Fort Hood, where, as you'll recall, Islamist Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 people and an unborn child while yelling "Allahu Akbar." As Hasan aptly demonstrated, there is a need for legitimate "terrorist profiling."
The Ft. Hood briefer targeted such "radical" Christian groups as the American Family Association -- a pro-family group that only the most jaded Obamaphile would describe as "radical," or someone too ignorant to distinguish the fact that the AFA is not a "domestic hate group." The information on AFA was from the ultra-Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center, which lists most pro-family Christian groups under its "hate" umbrella.
Fortunately, it did not take long for some briefing attendees, who were smart enough to recognize that AFA is not a terrorist group, to expose this nonsense.
Responding to objections to this and other briefings targeting conservative and Christian groups as a threat, the Department of Defense quickly issued a halt to the use of SPLC information, issuing a directive to restrain its security briefers and "Emphasize that neither DoD nor the Army maintain or publish any centralized list of specific organizations considered to be extremist in nature or in opposition to the Army's core values."
No sooner had that fire been contained than word arrived on a 600 page Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute training manual that "healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian" men -- members of what the text calls the "White Male Club" -- hold an unfair advantage over other service members. "Simply put, a healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian male receives many unearned advantages of social privilege, whereas a black, homosexual, atheist female in poor health receives many unearned disadvantages of social privilege."
Meanwhile, The Patriot is still aggressively pursuing answers about the removal of "So help me God" from Cadet and Officer oaths at the Air Force academy, an apparent subterfuge by the Obama administration to provide a proxy, Michael Weinstein, with a layup, a legal "gimme," which he can ultimately parlay into the removal of "So help me God" from every military oath.
Follow up: German homeschooler deportation case; Xmas legal in TX schools again
Reply #104 on:
November 26, 2013, 04:51:39 PM »
Last Edit: November 26, 2013, 04:54:54 PM by Crafty_Dog
WSJ: Corporations and Religious Freedom
Reply #105 on:
December 02, 2013, 11:43:14 AM »
Corporations and Religious Freedom
The Supreme Court takes on faith-based objections toObamaCare's contraception coverage mandate.
By David Skeel
Dec. 1, 2013 6:43 p.m. ET
Stephen Colbert recently treated his viewers to a funny spoof of the claim that for-profit corporations may have religious-freedom rights. Corporations "follow the one true profit," his joke went. Mr. Colbert was responding to a federal appellate court ruling that the contraception-coverage mandate in the Affordable Care Act violated the religious freedom rights of Hobby Lobby, a crafts store that objected to covering contraceptives that would prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg.
The appellate courts are deeply divided on corporate religious freedom. The Supreme Court has now agreed to review two cases—Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, which reached the opposite conclusion—to resolve the latest health-care imbroglio. The idea that for-profit corporations have religions-freedom rights is less silly than it may sound, but it also is not likely to start an avalanche of exemptions.
The corporations in these cases both sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Congress enacted in order to expand religious freedom rights after the Supreme Court had restricted them in a 1990 case, and under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The central question is whether a corporation can be a "person" for the purposes of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and whether the Free Exercise Clause applies to for-profit corporations.
Although the Supreme Court has never directly confronted the question of whether ordinary corporations can have religious-freedom rights, it is quite likely to conclude they can. Corporations often are treated as "persons" for legal purposes; indeed, many laws explicitly define "person" to include corporations as well as individuals. This doesn't mean corporations are persons for all purposes, as a California driver found out last year when he tried to get out of a ticket for driving in a high-occupancy-vehicle lane by pointing to the corporation documents in the passenger seat. But for some purposes they are.
The courts that have rejected corporate religious freedom point out that corporations like Hobby Lobby or Conestoga "do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously-motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors," as the trial court in the Hobby Lobby case had put it. But one can say the same thing about churches and other religious organizations, which are usually organized as corporations.
Bypassing the corporate freedom issue, some argue that any religious freedom rights simply "pass through" the corporation to the shareholders. After all, with both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga, the corporation's stock is held by a single family of devout Christians. But the corporation is the one that is required to satisfy the mandate that its health-care plan cover the objectionable contraceptives or that it pay a very stiff fine ($1.3 million per day for Hobby Lobby).
The federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., recently tried another tack, holding that corporations lack religious freedom rights, but that the health-care law's mandate infringed the shareholders' rights in that case. But this conclusion was backward. The real harm was to the corporation; any harm to the shareholders was indirect.
Although some might worry that a massive wave of corporate religious freedom claims would follow a Supreme Court ruling, this is unlikely. Hobby Lobby would probably qualify, since its statement of purpose affirms the Green family's commitment to "honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles." But a corporation whose managers happen to be religious, but which lacks a similarly clear policy, would not.
As cases arise in the future, courts would need to determine whether the corporation does in fact operate on religious principles. But the same question arises when an individual asserts religious-freedom rights, and sincerity is much easier to determine with a corporation than with an individual, since there is no need to look inside the heart of a corporation. If a corporation's certificate of incorporation requires that it be operated in accordance with religious principles, or if its board of directors has established a clear and explicit practice of pursuing religious objectives, it would qualify. Otherwise it would not. Among large corporations, perhaps Chick-fil-A would satisfy such a test, but very few others would.
Religious freedom rights also would not protect a corporation from every law that offends the corporation's principles. The Supreme Court held in 1982 that an Amish business could not forgo making Social Security contributions, despite the owner's sincerely held religious objections, because an exemption would undermine the overall system. The government would still be free to make this kind of argument in defense of subjecting religious for-profit corporations to the health-care act's contraception mandate.
Corporations are not like other people. They are persons for the purposes of some rights but not others. In the coming months, there is a very good chance the Supreme Court will conclude that one of the rights that some for-profit corporations do enjoy is a right to religious freedom.
Mr. Skeel, a visiting professor at New York University School of Law, is the author of "The New Financial Deal: Understanding the Dodd-Frank Act and Its (Unintended) Consequences" (Wiley, 2011)
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Dog Brothers Information
=> Instructor Lists
=> Biographies & Instructor Details
Powered by SMF 1.1.17
SMF © 2011, Simple Machines