Thomas Jefferson on religion and Christianity.
Thomas Jefferson was, without doubt, the greatest president of the United States. He is the man who authored the American Declaration of Independence and was one of the most influential men when it came to the founding principles of the US. He was also a staunch critic of Christianity -- as were so many of the founding fathers. Here are just a few of his remarks.
“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”
“ecause religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”
“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”
“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.”
“The clergy believe that any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion.”
“His [Calvin's] religion was demonism. If ever a man worshiped a false god, he did. The being described in his five points is ... a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious, attributes of Calvin.”
“The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.”
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
“To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise ... without plunging into the fathomless abyss of dreams and phantasms. I am satisfied, and sufficiently occupied with the things which are, without tormenting or troubling myself about those which may indeed be, but of which I have no evidence.”
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”
‘The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read the Apocalypse, and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy, nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.... what has no meaning admits no explanation.”
Regarding the four Gospels on Jesus: “We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.”
“The metaphysical insanities of Athanasius, of Loyola, and of Calvin, are, to my understanding, mere relapses into polytheism, differing from paganism only by being more unintelligible.”
“In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and prayer parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use a mere earthly lover.”
“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine.”
“I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. .... If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5 points is ..but a demon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, then to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin.”
25 Comments:
Our nation cries out for a leader like Jefferson.
January 11, 2007
Jefferson wasn't bad for his time although we must keep in mind that he owned slaves and produced offspring with some of the females; didn't apply the Constitution to non-white male land owners, and reduced the penalty for buggery from death to castration.
January 11, 2007
Indioheathen: Jefferson inherited slaves and would have had a difficult time freeing them under VA law. He did turn a blind eye when some "escaped" to non slave states. And he tried to get slavery abolished but the deck was stacked against him. As for "some of the females" the claim, which is still open to debate, is that he had a relationship with one woman not plural. The woman was in fact the half sister of his deceased wife. And while there is an assumption she was a black slave she was only part black but mostly white (yes they had white slaves too!). Sally Hemming's father was Jefferson's father in law. Sally's mother also had a white father and it is possible that her great grandmother also had a white father. This is often neglected. What the DNA evidence shows is that the descendents of Hemming share some DNA with the Jefferson descendents but there were also claims at the time that a nephew of Jefferson's was having a relationship with Hemmings. So we can't be sure. The most that is claimed is that Jefferson had a long term relationship with Hemmings (after the death of his wife). It is not an issue of raping her and no one claims that except perhaps some on the lunatic fringe.
I am not sure what you mean by referring to the Constitution not applying since Jefferson had nothing to do with the Constitution. He wrote the Declaration but was in France during the Constitutional debates and hardly participated due to distance. He did reduce the penalty for sodomy which, for that time, was a step forward. I don't judge him by today's standards. I do judge people today by what we know today. Jefferson was giant who pushed liberty forward by many steps.
January 12, 2007
I find it interesting that you won't judge Jefferson by today's standards, yet you frequently do so with John Calvin. Or worse, you judge John Calvin by the standards of Thomas Jefferson's day.
January 14, 2007
Once again Publius you intentionally drop the context. What is the difference between Jefferson and Calvin? (Other than the one advocated expanding freedom and the other didn't?) It is that Jefferson claimed to speaking only for himself and not for a god. He claimed no supernatural inspiration. It is Calvin's theology and what he did in the name of a deity that I attack. This blog is about what is done when people claim to speak or act on behalf of a deity. Now Jefferson, who had no pretence of the supernatural, condemned slavery. Calvin entertained such pretences didn't. Jefferson, who made no claims about having an inspired book, worked endlessly to expand religious freedom. Calvin who made such claims worked just as hard to restrict such freedom. It appears that Calvin's "godliness" made his worse a man. Jefferson lived in a culture and went well beyond it toward higher values. Calvin, at best, was merely a creature of his culture who didn't improve on it and there is a case he was actually worse than the society in which he lived.
Calvin claimed something Jefferson did not. He claimed he had a divine book which had "God's moral code" in it. It is that book, that religion, and the actions it inspires which I judge. Now if you want to concede is not divine, that it is only man's books, has no touch of the divine, then on that basis I will say the following: As an entirely human construct Christianity and Calvinism in particular are creatures of their times. Christianity as in the gospels was pretty much on par with the age (not much worse, not much better). Calvinism was a step backwards and was inherently authoritarian and dictatorial. Compared to other human philosophies it is worse than some and better than others (it takes a lot to be worse than communism, socialism, nazism, fascism, etc.
So if you are willing to concede that Calvin is no different than Jefferson, that both were only humans operating with their own minds, that neither was "godly" or had the "word of god" to use, and you are willing to place Calvin entirely in the realm of human history with absolutely no divinity involved then I will judge them by the same standards. (By the way if I do Jefferson still comes out the better man and it's no contest.)
I find it interesting that you want to pretend that Calvin had god's book in hand and worked with the divine in one context and then want his actions and ideas only judged by human standards in another.
January 15, 2007
It is amazing to me how you percieve the world, and history through your own warped looking glass, and do not even think about the possibility of looking from a different perspective. I look at Jefferson and respect him for a great number of reasons. One reason was his understanding of Liberty on all fronts. If only more people understood it as well as he did. But I can also look at the man's opinions on organized religion, scripture and just about anything else related to spiritual matters and I can intellectually criticize where I believe he was wrong. But overall he had an understanding that surpassed his peers as well as surpasses the understanding of most people today.
As for Calvin, he was but a man, but he also had understanding that surpassed his peers, and he certainly had understanding that surpasses most people today. The difference between the two men, as I see it, was the subject of their understanding.
Jefferson lived in an era ruled by tyrannical monarchies who oppressed. He was instrumental in helping set people free from civil oppression of all kinds, including religious oppression.
Step back a couple hundred years to Calvin, and you find a man who lived in an era ruled by tyrannical clergymen. Calvin's primary focus was not civil liberties, but spiritual freedom and understanding of Scriptures.
You blame him for his incorrect approach to civil administration, and the blame would be correct, except for the fact that he only followed the principles of government that were present at the time. It's not as if he was doing anything new or different in the area of civil administration. His politics are not what he is known for, and shouldn't be.
What he DID do, was take a fresh look at Scripture, building on Luther's work, and put the spiritual authority back where it belonged, in Scripture alone. Civil government and administration continued on without much change, unfortunately. But again, that wasn't Calvin's focus, just as Jefferson was no religious leader. Jefferson did not do anything to enhance the common man's understanding of Scripture, but he went leaps and bounds in upholding civil liberty for the individual. In Calvin's day, the seperation of Church and State was unheard of, even unthought of, and for his day, John Calvin went to great lengths for religious freedoms. While people were being burned and tortured by the thousands in France by the Catholic Church, Calvin worked tirelessly in appealing to the King of France as well as the Dukes, Magistrates, and other rulers of the day in order to secure the freedom of these people.
Calvin never claimed he was speaking for God. Calvin simply took what was said by God, and shed light on our understanding of it, which is just as valid today as it ever was.
You say it is Calvin's theology that you attack, but I've not seen you make one single theological attack at all. You simply point the finger at the faults of men and laugh in mockery. Make an intellectual statement concerning even one theological point of John Calvin and we can talk about it. But otherwise, don't pretend to be concerned with John Calvin's theology.
January 15, 2007
If you think my views (pro reason and pro liberty) are warped then you are most welcome to not read them.
Calvin was a man. An asshole of a man, a vicious man, a tyrant and just a man. He claimed to have a book written by a god and claimed he understood it. He was a wrong on both accounts. You say Calvin didn’t claim to speak for god but only took “what was said by god”. Rubbish. He took what was written by people more stupid and barbaric than himself and pretended it was said by god.
You, however, again twist facts to try and save your theology. You claim Calvin “worked tirelessly in appealing” for “the freedom of these people.” Which people? Calvinists! And only Calvinists. Calvin was no advocate of human freedom. Just freedom for his own theology. If you want a history of religious toleration try Perez Zagorin “How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West” or Kamen’s “The Rise of Toleration”. No one thinks that Calvin was an advocate of religious freedom.
Like Luther he only wanted toleration for his ideas and oppression of others. Perez notes that Calvin was worse on the topic than Luther since Calvin wanted “heretics” killed. He said prosecution of Calvinists were wrong because the Catholics who did it were false teachers. But persecution of Catholics is acceptable because the Calvinists had the truth.
The view of Calvin was simple. Where Calvinists were a minority he pleaded for their freedom to believe as they wished and practice their faith. Where Calvin’s theology dominated he demanded for state controls to prevent others from practicing their faith and supported the death penalty. And you want to pretend he was an advocate of freedom. I guess if you can believe in walking on water and resurrections you can fall for anything.
January 15, 2007
Again you make assertions but fail to give any evidence for the truth of your assertions. You say Calvin was wrong about the Bible being the Word of God, and wrong when he claimed he understood it. Present an argument opposing it. Site a passage that would contradict this. Or site a historical fact that contradicts it.
On top of your baseless assertions, you are simply wrong about your historical facts. We have copies of letters FROM Calvin to various rulers and magistrates appealing for freedom for Protestants at large, and even nominal Catholics who were caught up in the inquisition because they didn't agree on specific points with the Pope. "Calvinism" didn't even come about until much later, which is something you seem not even to understand. Calvin was a defender for any defector from the Catholic faith.
The fact that people who were labeled "heretics" were burned at the stake is a very tragic occurrance in history due to the common practices of the day. It was civil law in Switzerland that blaspheme and other transgressions of the sort, were punishable by death. Calvin endorsed it, because there was no reason not to. It was the law of the land at the time. And by measure, Calvin was much more tolerant than his peers on the matter.
Much the same as Jefferson' stand on slavery, but of course, you're much more willing to overlook Jefferson's flaws, aren't you.
January 15, 2007
Oh, yes all those experts on the history of toleration are wrong and some hick from South Carolina inspired by some malignant hateful book knows the truth. Calvin actively encouraged the death penalty. We've covered that. He was actively involved in the murder of Servitus. Only Calvinists and their blind faith assert to the contrary. Servitus was not a Catholic but a Protestant and Calvin said the man should be killed and yet you insist he was "a defender of any defector from the Catholic faith" --- any defector obviously didn't include Servitus whose murder he endorsed and encouraged. Publius, you make up facts to go along with your made up faith.
And to say you are tiresome would be an understatement.
January 15, 2007
Why do you insist on resorting to personal insults? It would seem that if you really had a case for your arguments, you wouldn't need to do so.
What exactly are you arguing?? That Calvin was less tolerant than Thomas Jefferson?? You'd be completely right! I'm not arguing with you on that point. And neither would Calvin, for that matter, if he had known Jefferson. Tolerance for all men was not at all the goal of the early Protestants! They were more focused on avoiding the minor issues of ... oh, I don't know.. BEING EXTERMINATED by the Catholic Inquisition?! The early Protestant movement's solution (in part) was to retreat to the safe havens in Switzerland where they had their own laws and their own ways. Those laws were based on what they thought was right at the time. They were wrong. Nobody (at least nobody of any consequence) is denying that now.
Perhaps you can tell me what facts you think it is that I've made up then?
January 15, 2007
You start our your reply referring to my “warped looking glass” and then take umbrage because I respond in kind.
Here is why I really, really, really hate talking to fundamentalists. They are constantly shifting the argument avoiding the original issue and trying to change the topic to push their damn shit. I make a posting about Jefferson and you manage to twist it into a discussion of your monstrous guru Calvin. If we discuss slavery you change the topic, everything to push Calvinism. Now you are trying to turn it into a conversation about the book fo fairy tales that you allow to control your brain.
And you lie! Outright lie, distort and twist. You said Calvin was a fighter for freedom. I pointed out he was not! He supported killing people who were not Protestants of the kind which he approved of. He denied Catholics their freedom. He said it was right and proper to kill Protestants who violated his views of doctrine. And you come up with shit like “Calvin endorsed it (executing people) because there was no reason not to.” No reason not to! Stop the bullshit Publius. There are plenty of reasons to stop killing people and to oppose killing people because of their beliefs. But you have such crap in your head you have to find ways to justify it.
Your have said, twice now, that Calvin “was a defender for any defector from the Catholic faith.” Servitus was a defector from the Catholic faith. He wanted Servitus killed. You are lying because you know that Servitus was killed by the Calvinists in Geneva with Calvin’s approval. And you say he defender defectors from Catholicism meaning you acknowledge he wanted to destroy the liberty of Catholics to worship as they felt right.
You say he was “more tolerant than his peers” but the eminent historian of religious folerance Perez Zagorin says Calvin was just as bad “if not worse” than his peers. I referred you to two well know major works on that topic. on that point. You ignore that and then just repeat the falsehood again. You can not consider evidence like every fundamentalist I know your mind is closed.
Jefferson opposed slavery and he tried to get it banned. Calvin endorsed killing heretics and helped prosecutor Servitus and applauded when he was burned to death by your spiritual ancestors. And you have the gall of saying that in this sense Jefferson and Calvin were similar. And no mainstream historian of the history of religious toleration thinks Calvin was more tolerant than other spiritual authoritarians you respect. It’s not true but even if it were true it would be on par of being the nicest Nazi guarding the camps.
I’ve really lost all patience here with your tactics. It is useless to talk to a fundamentalist.
January 15, 2007
I SEE you've lost patience. That much is evident. And calling me a liar still does not make your point. Yes I said he fought for the freedom of the Protestants in France. That's a historical fact. Would you rather he had not?
I'm not even sure why we're discussing Calvin's "tolerance level" at all. That wasn't my initial point. And to pretend that your post had nothing to do with John Calvin is plainly deceitful.
I'm really very disappointed that we've not accomplished anything constructive from this conversation at all. Some of our conversations have been quite reasonable. Would it make any difference to restate my initial charge and begin in a different manner?
January 15, 2007
Let us look at why I said you were dishonest. You started out claiming:
“John Calvin went to great lengths for religious freedoms.”
I pointed out he supported killing heretics and was not an advocate of religious freedom. You then change your claim from going to great lengths for religious freedom to being a “defender for any defector from the Catholic faith.” That is also not true. He went only to the defense of people he agreed with theologically and supported killing people who he considered heretics even if they were defectors from Catholicism. Both your statements were false.
You change it slight again saying he “fought for the freedom of the Protestants in France.” He fought for the defense of only some Protestants in France not all Protestants. There is no honor in defending the right of people to agree with you while calling for the execution of people who don’t. That is what Calvin did. And you are distorting the facts and changing what you say without acknowledging that your first statements were false.
It is dishonest to pretend that he was defending religious freedom. He was not. He wanted freedom for Protestants who agreed with him theologically but he did not want freedom for Protestants who disagreed with him -- and if they disagreed enough he wanted them killed. KILLED. MURDERED. And this is the man you pretend defended religious freedom. And he didn’t want such freedom for Catholics at all. That is not religious tolerance. And it is dishonest to claim that Calvin was some sort of advocate of religious freedom especially since you know all this. You are not ignorant of Calvin’s position but you chose to pretend they were something they were not.
January 15, 2007
First, let's back up. My initial statement was that you are willing to give Thomas Jefferson the benefit of the standards of his day, but you are unwilling to do so with John Calvin. That was my point in all this, not anything to do with religious tolerance or anything else.
You blame John Calvin because he agreed with the carrying out of a sentence that was passed on a man guilty of breaking the laws in Geneva at that time. He was wrong in that, and so were the laws that condemned Servitus. This much I freely admit. To condemn John Calvin for not doing more for "religious tolerance" would be like me condemning you for not being able to build a functional Flux Capacitor capable of time travel. The idea of religious tolerance, in the 21st Century sense of the term, was not even dreamed of.
In the face of the Inquisition, comparitively speaking, John Calvin DID do much for religious freedoms. Without the progress that John Calvin and his followers made in the 16th Century, there would have been no room for Jefferson's ideas in the 18th Century. Does that much at least make sense to you?
Did John Calvin go far enough with the idea of religious freedoms? Of course not! Did Thomas Jefferson go far enough with individual liberty? You tell me. What did he think of the idea of women having a voice in politics? But yet do we blame him for this? Absolutely not, because again the idea was unthinkable.
January 16, 2007
Calvin did not just go along with the law that exectued Servetus. He promoted it. He encouraged it. He endorsed it and defended it. Your comment is like saying Hitler didn't do enough to defend the rights of Jews. He didn't. But that isn't the point. He was antiJewish and promoted the very deeds he didn't do enough to stop. Calvin was anti-religious freedom and promoted the very deeds you say he didn't do enough to stop. It wasn't that he neglected to fight for the rights of these people but that he actively and consistently helped persecute them. Calvin's role in the execution of Servetus is well known. Calvin's sop to tolerance there was he thought Servetus should have been beheaded (jiahad, jihad) instead of burned alive. I do not condemn Calvin for not doing enough for tolernace. I condemn him for hating tolerance and being its enemy.
Your claims about the role of Calvinists in promoting liberty is pure trash. I am rereading two books on the rise of tolerance in the West. Both are prominent works in this field. And both make it clear that the Calvinists were the most vociferous enemies of tolerance and did nothing to expand freedom but worked tirelessly to inhibit it. So no, your distortions of history don't make sense to me.
January 16, 2007
Ok, let's talk about that for a moment. Don't confuse "Calvinists" with John Calvin, for starters. There were many who followed after Calvin and his theological teachings that did horrendous things that cannot be justified under any stretch of the imagination. I would completely agree with the statement that it was the Calvinists who were historically some of the worst at justifying all sorts of terrible things in the name of enforcing "purity." And again, I do not endorse any such thing, and the accusations are completely justified, unfortunately.
January 16, 2007
No confusion. The heirs of Calvin were tyrants but they learned from their master. Calvin endorsed and promoted the worst forms of religious tyranny --- the execution of people he thought were "heretics". As I've repeatedly said, it is not that he didn't push liberty enough but that he pushed tyranny hard. It is not that he was weak friend of freedom but that he was freedom's active opponent. And while the followers of Calvin deserve much criticism Calvin himself was just as bad and much worse than many.
January 16, 2007
He participated in the carrying out of lawful punishment of one man (wrong as it may have been), and you ignore the thousands that he helped in France that were being tortured and burned there?
By that logic, Jefferson should be held accountable for the slaves he still maintained under law. Should he not?
January 16, 2007
Thank you for proving how blind you are and how unwilling you are to think. This is why I suspect you are no libertarian. You justify Calvin's tyranny because he particiapted in a "lawful punishment" not a rightful punishment. So as long as a law is passed first it's okay. The guards at Dachau were "carrying out lawful punishment". He didn't say thousands of lives. He pleaded his own case. That is he felt people like himself shouldn't be punished (lawfully by the way) only people who disagreed with his theology should be punished. He wanted "heretical" Protestants executed and he wanted to deny Cathlics all religious freedom. Right. This is the monster you have to defend.
And as I understand it if Jefferson "freed" his slaves the state had laws allows them to be confiscated by the state and sold to other owners. He lobbied to end slavery. And he worked to abolish it. Calvin lobbied to murder "heretics" and helped them do so. And then justified it and applauded it after it was done.
If you can't see the difference you are truly blinded by your tyrannical religion. You have proven my point. At their heart every fundamentalist Christian must end up opposing freedom or end up opposing their religion. You have made your position quite clear. Calvin would be proud. Jefferson ashamed. I see no further point in this discussion. You are utterly hopeless.
January 16, 2007
And once again you're putting words in my mouth. I'm not justifying his actions in the case of Servitus at all. Hence my use of the words "WRONG as it may have been." What I'm saying is, Jefferson was just as much a product of his time as Calvin was his, and vice-versa. Calvin was absolutely wrong in his approach to civil government. I've not tried to deny this at all. Answer me this: was it common practice to execute heretics in 16th Century Europe?
January 16, 2007
As I said, utterly hopeless. That brid don't fly. Anyone who can read and compares your story will see what I mean. Calvin was a monster even in his times and Jefferson was well beyond his. And yet you compare the two. Hopeless, hopeless, hopeless and irrational.
January 16, 2007
That wasn't a rhetorical question. Was it or was it not common law in Europe in the 16th Century to execute heretics?
January 16, 2007
Typical evasion. Slavery was common in Jefferson's era and he opposed it and wanted it abolished. And he had that moral view without revelation. Calvin had "God's word" and still couldn't figure out that murdering peole was wrong -- he applauded killing them. And are you asking was this common or part of the common law. It was not the common law which evolved priot to Christianity. As Jefferson himself wrote: "he common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law, or lex non scripta, and commences that of the statute law, or Lex Scripta. This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here, then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it." Of course you may not be the common law but laws that were common which is not the same thing.
January 16, 2007
I am indeed speaking of laws that were commonly in place all over Europe. I assume with that clarified, you are agreeing that it was certainly a law that was common, almost universally in Europe.
January 16, 2007
And it was common to mistreat Jews in Nazi Germany. So no excuse. So when cops shot innocent people in drug raids in America you will give it a pass because it's common. When the Christian fundamentalists in the American South overrode the bus companies to pass laws to force blacks to the back of the bus you would be forced to say "well it almost universally common in the South". Moral relativist.
You are a waste of time. I'm finished with this sort of argumentation on your part.
January 16, 2007
Post a Comment
<< Home