Focus on the Family, the evangelical organization founded by Dr. James Dobson, has removed from its website an interview with former CNN host Glenn Beck following complaints over the politically conservative TV personality's Mormon faith.
The original article about Beck's best-selling new book, "The Christmas Sweater," appeared on the ministry's CitizenLink website on Dec. 19, but three days later an article published on ChristianNewsWire criticized Focus for promoting a Mormon "as a Christian."
"While Glenn's social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not," writes Steve McConkey of Underground Apologetics on ChristianNewsWire. "The CitizenLink story does not mention Beck's Mormon faith, however the story makes it look as if Beck is a Christian who believes in the essential doctrines of the faith."
FOF are using the test of orthodoxy to exclude Mormons from the concept of "Christianity."
Richard Price, who profoundly influenced the American Founding, and himself an Arian who believed Jesus a divine but created and subordinate being, discussed this dynamic during the Founding era. What follows is from his widely read address Observations on the Importance of the American Revolution, indeed an address that George Washington "read with much pleasure."
Price says a number of interesting things in the address. First, he identifies as a Christian and promotes Christianity:
When Christianity, that first and best of all the means of human improvement, was first preached it was charged with turning the world upside down.
But he also slams the Trinity and its inclusion as an essential doctrine which the clergy must read and to which the people must assent:
Perhaps nothing more shocking to reason and humanity ever made a part of a religious system than the damning clauses in the Athanasian creed and yet the obligation of the clergy to declare assent to this creed, and to read it as a part of the public devotion, remains.
Then in the context of arguing religious liberty and equality for all (not just "Christians"), Price asserts:
Montesquieu probably was not a Christian. Newton and Locke were not Trinitarians and therefore not Christians according to the commonly received ideas of Christianity. Would the United States, for this reason, deny such men, were they living, all places of trust and power among them?
Understanding this dynamic -- that Americans were divided over how properly to understand "Christianity" -- is essential for understanding the political theological problem of the American Founding. The Founders solved it by taking Trinitarian Christianity out of politics and replacing it with "religion" in general, or some more generic kind of "Christianity" that would include basically anything that terms itself "Christianity," without having to meet any kind of theological test. Hence are the Mormons Christian? Yes. Why? Because they call themselves Christian. That's what "Americanism" as the Founding Fathers delivered it to us is all about. That the Mormons didn't exist during the Founding is irrelevant to my point. Substitute for "Mormons" Arians, Socinians, theological Universalists, and the logic stands.
30 comments:
Jon,
I applaud what you're trying to do here, but I'd sharpen your point.
Christianity, both for the founders and for us, must mean more than merely calling yourself Christian (something which could be done for nefarious reasons, especially if Christianity enjoys a privileged status).
My nomination has been that to be Christian requires a religion built upon the proposition that Christ was sui generis and not merely primus inter pares, i.e. at least the son of God (whatever that might mean) and not just the wisest in a group of wise men that admits of others (e.g. Socrates, Buddha, etc).
In other words, Muslims are not Mohammedans precisely because for them, Mohammed was only primus inter pares. To be a Mohammedan rather than a Muslim requires holding Mohammed higher than that; to be a Christian requires holding Christ (or Jesus - I'm not yet entertaining any distinction between Jesusarians and Christians) similarly above any comparison.
Kristo: "Christianity, both for the founders and for us, must mean more than merely calling yourself Christian [...]"
Personally, I'm torn on this issue. Is there an objective method to determine who is and is not a Christian?
If there is, I am unaware of it (keeping in mind that I have no appreciation for the claim the Bible embodies literal truth).
If there is no objective method (I realize we likely disagree on that, which means we will not agree on what is objective, but I'll continue with my postion), then all that is left is the subjective.
How are we to subjectively determine who is and is not Christian? ... by majority determination of by individual determination?
I find this question particularly interestig as a recent poll indicated that nearly 50% of self professed Christians think that atheists can find everlasing life in heaven ... oh the rich irony, in that ;-)
In any event, given that religious liberty is perhaps the most profound accomplishment of the founders legacy, I don't see how it is consistent with the founder's legacy to take any position other than; it is an individual's liberty to determine/judge if he is or is not Christian.
Perhaps you have a position that does not test a broad interpretation of the establishment & free-exercise clauses that would justify the government (of the founders day or ours) taking a different position? If so, I am eagerly interested. If not, I remain interested in your thoughts.
Jon, although you're technically correct that Washington wrote that he read Richard Price's 1785 sermon "with much pleasure," a close reading of his letter shows it's by no means an endorsement of Price's sentiments, no more than he did in his reply to the Swedenborgians. It may be seen as an endorsement of religious pluralism, however.
The Americans [this is 1785, just before the drafting of the Constitution] had every reason to endorse pluralism on practical grounds, as there were so many sects as to guarantee a replay of the religious strife that bloodied Europe, including Britain itself.
Via Barry Shain, Price's reply to a letter from Rev. Benjamin Rush a year later in 1786, Rush being a fellow I'd call a "key" Founder:
“You observe that in writing to the citizens of America it would be necessary that I should be silent about the disputed doctrines of Christianity, and particularly the Trinity."
I haven't done the spadework to dig up Rush's original letter to Price [and mebbe it doesn't survive], but Rush is obviously saying to Price, "Ix-nay on the Inity-tray" if you want to be heard in America.
I found your quote and argument to be excellent, Jon, and they appeared to me quite decisive at first glance and face value. But I did a little digging, and once again, the truth proves to be elusive.
Ix-nay on the Inity-tray, then and now...
More here in Rush's collected letters.
http://books.google.com/books?id=qe0M4PgMBMEC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22richard+price%22+%22benjamin+rush%22+trinity&source=web&ots=Pwiok-pubg&sig=B7MiHEAYEth2HC9djG8yjRcQC88&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
Benjamin Rush was kinda Ground Zero in the theological discussions of the heterodox. He was that kinda guy. He was the one who wrote Jefferson and John Adams and got them start talking to each other again. Much to the misery of most of us, as their confidential prattlings about religion after they left public life are continuously quoted as if they had anything to do with anything. They're interesting in an academic way, but as far as the price of tea in China [or Boston], they were dead letters.
Ben, you say that you think the fact nearly fifty percent of America's Christians think believe heaven has room for atheists is ironic. Heck, I find it encouraging!
Jon, if Mormons regard themselves as Christians, that's good enough for me. But does that mean I have to credit Glenn Beck's claims to represent Christianity ?
I recall how during Southern California's wildfires in October of 2007, Mr. Beck chortled with glee that "people who hate America" were "losing their homes in a forest fire."
As Glenn Beck celebrated Southern California's misfortune, I packed my wife and children into our minivan, with our important papers, computers, and pets. I'll never forget my children's terror on seeing Mt. San Miguel in flames so near to our home.
You can call Glenn Beck a Christian if you'd like Jon. Forgive me if I decline to join you.
Well, as a Mormon I have to admit that I am NOT a big Glenn Beck fan. I find him to be WAY too conservative for my personal tastes. With that said, I have to laugh at Focus on the Family's lame excuse here. This is the same group that proclaimed Ted Haggard to be "cleansed" from his gayness, prayed that rain would ruin Obama's DNC acceptance, and posted a picture of President Bush along side Jesus in their Visitor's Center entrance, but state that they will not do the same for our new president.
I gusss that if they want to label Mormons as non-Christians that is fine by me. It's no skin of my or any other Mormon's back. No harm, no foul I guess. At least we Mormons have the guys from South Park on our side:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLnSJo3Z-Iw&feature=PlayList&p=ABFE1AB85C9BFDD5&index=0&playnext=1
You gotta love the intolerance of the "tolerant."
Beck bites back:
"Whatever your beliefs about my religion, the concept of religious tolerance is too important to be sacrificed in response to pressure from special interest groups, especially when it means bowing to censorship."
Glenn doesn't sound too happy about the situation. I wonder if Dr. Dobson intends to defend himself against Glenn's charge of censorship? Not to mention Glenn's accusation that the article was pulled due to pressure from "special interest groups" ... that doesn't sound like a very friendly description of the folks who persuaded Dr. Dobson to pull Beck off the CitizenLink site.
Eric: Ben, you say that you think the fact nearly fifty percent of America's Christians think believe heaven has room for atheists is ironic. Heck, I find it encouraging!
I agree. The irony is that atheist would give a 0% chance of anyone going to heaven ;-)
Hi Ben!
My thought has been that when looking at Christianity from an historical perspective, we should look at it the same way we look at Marxism, and in some way more sharply defined than "Mohammedanism" (which we find to be an inappropriate name). So, for a religion to be an "ism" named for a person requires a view of that person more singular than Islam has of Mohammed, but general enough to embrace mutually excommunicating factions (as with the Marxists, each sect of whom denies that their competitors are Marxists).
Many definitions that meet this broad test are possible, but not all definitions will.
One point to note especially with respect to this approach: defining Christianity is not a task for Christians, but for historians (who may, in passing, also be Christians). Although for the founders, there was a rough and ready consensus on which denominations were of the "true religion" (the founders avoided calling that "true religion" Christianity, in part because disagreement over the exact nature of Christ was part of what they were unifying across; but they never spoke of "true religions" in the plural, and the "true religion" was everywhere bible-based). All religions were welcome in America, but this was because the "true religion" taught that they should be welcome, not because they were all part of this bibliocentric civic religion.
It is, thus, surely true that "it is an individual's liberty to determine/judge if he is or is not Christian...", but it was also thought to be the prerogative of the community to confirm for its own purposes the faith of certain leaders placed in positions of trust. Those confirmations involved varying criteria in the different states, and diminishing criteria over time, and I don't want to suggest that the standard of any one specific time or place was better than the others. But the founders clearly allowed the "true religion" to be defined for civic purposes, however generically (and some states were very explicit).
To say that we want to live in a secular state is a perfectly accptable modern political position; to say that the founders gave us a secular state is historically inaccurate.
Kristo: "One point to note especially with respect to this approach: defining Christianity is not a task for Christians, but for historians (who may, in passing, also be Christians). Although for the founders, there was a rough and ready consensus on which denominations were of the "true religion" (the founders avoided calling that "true religion" Christianity, in part because disagreement over the exact nature of Christ was part of what they were unifying across; but they never spoke of "true religions" in the plural, and the "true religion" was everywhere bible-based)"
I'm confused. Your position is that the founders saw the "true religion" (not scare quotes) as Christianity, but are incapable of defining what Christianity is?
While I agree that at Jesus' example/nature is the physical embodiment of is means to be religious, I withdraw from making any claims to knowledge of absolute truth or "true religion". I think most of us can recognize behavior that is inconsistent with true religion, but it is an entirely different thing for one of finite cognitive ability to know that true religion is. I'd be surprised if a few of the founders didn't have a similar perspective.
So I might be mincing words, but I don't find that the founders agreed upon what constituted true religion. However, I do agree that each of them found that that the Christian religion did encompass elements that the founders found most excellent (as well as elements they/some found revolting ... Jefferson gives many examples).
But enough of my thoughts on that, what evidence has led you to your conclusion that the founders thought Christianity to be the "true religion" (an absolute no?) rather than, for example, the most admirable they'd encountered? ... or perhaps I'm misconstrued your assertion entirely.
Kristo: "To say that we want to live in a secular state is a perfectly accptable modern political position; to say that the founders gave us a secular state is historically inaccurate."
I suspect we (you and I) have a very different view of secularism. My view is that secularism desires that motives and purpose be formally *expressed* in the absence of dogma, superstition, doctrine, and preferably non-evidnece ideology of any kind ... I am only satisfied by material justifications of government actions.
However, in my mind, secularism does not require that government be purged of individuals who embrace religious doctrine, superstition, or even dogma. In my opinion, secularism does not desire the purging of religious sentiments/ideals/motivations. Rather it desires that such individuals do participate.
If secularism required a purging of religious individuals and/or religious sentiments/ideals/motivations the it would not be consistent with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In my view, secularism is an inclusive goal which avoids divisive language of a non-material nature (dogma, doctrine, ideology, or other such language).
With that in mind, the constitution is the most profound example of a secular document that I've encountered.
Thus, I find your position at odds with my perspective. How do you define secularism?
Although for the founders, there was a rough and ready consensus on which denominations were of the "true religion" (the founders avoided calling that "true religion" Christianity, in part because disagreement over the exact nature of Christ was part of what they were unifying across; but they never spoke of "true religions" in the plural, and the "true religion" was everywhere bible-based).>
To the framers, the Bible was the Word of God. Arianism, racovianism, etc, didn't Adams and the rest view that a corruption of the Bible?
If anything, Adams viewed the Trinity as a corruption of both the Bible and reason (i.e., "self-evident Truths").
Although for the founders, there was a rough and ready consensus on which denominations were of the "true religion" (the founders avoided calling that "true religion" Christianity, in part because disagreement over the exact nature of Christ was part of what they were unifying across; but they never spoke of "true religions" in the plural, and the "true religion" was everywhere bible-based).
Here's one quotation of Adams' that contradicts this. (I have others.)
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
-- letter to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
From my reading of the key FFs [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, and many others] the test of "true religion" was that it in fact produced virtue. And if the ends were met, it mattered not the means (paraphrasing Ben Franklin). They thought Christianity had an edge because of (surprise, surprise) the superior of Jesus of Nazareth's moral teachings. But they also thought "true religion" could be found in Judaism, certain forms of Deism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan-Greco-Romanism, Native American Spirituality, and Confucianism.
If there was an LCD "tenet" of "true religion" it was the teaching of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and punishments. And, they thought (even the Trinitarian Benjamin Rush) that this tenet could be found in lots of non-biblical, non-Christian religions.
Wow ... Jon,
Great prose!
Thanks Ben.
Eric: I hope everything turned out okay for your family and your house (I'm assuming it did).
But they also thought "true religion" could be found in Judaism, certain forms of Deism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan-Greco-Romanism, Native American Spirituality, and Confucianism.
If there was an LCD "tenet" of "true religion" it was the teaching of an overriding Providence and future state of rewards and punishments. And, they thought (even the Trinitarian Benjamin Rush) that this tenet could be found in lots of non-biblical, non-Christian religions.
Not so. Perhaps these notions appear in Jefferson's and Adams' [private] letters after they left public life, but precious little in the others especially Washington and Madison, who were positively Sphinx-like on theology.
[From my reading of the key FFs [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, G. Morris, and many others]
Moreover, "key Founders" is a term and method that may or may not even be valid [a Founder is a Founder] and here drifts toward excluding the very many who were orthodox.
Neither is there any reason to believe that the Founders as a group thought Greco-Roman paganism or Hinduism were "true religions." This is simply a bridge too far.
Hi Ben!
I was trying to say too much, or perhaps not trying to say any one thing at all, but bits and pieces of many things - sorry.
First, though, I'm a Kantian, so the idea that things as they exist in the world (e.g. Christianity in practice) cannot be pinned down by precise definitions is foundational to my worldview. Just as the supreme court cannot define pornography but knows it, so the founders could not (or chose not to) define Christianity but knew it, at least for their own purposes (we today might dispute that they knew Christianity, in part because we have become more orthodox over the centuries).
The founders had a broad conception of Christianity, in part becasue that is an inherent feature of American history: we were, for the early centuries at least, a refuge for those whose religious speculations weren't tolerated in Europe. We directed our own intolerance not at innovative Christian thought but at the machinery of homogenization of religious thought, some of it (such as episcopal organization and church discipline) included in what elsewhere in the world is called orthodoxy (part of our unorthodoxy is that we redefine orthodoxy to suit our heterodoxy).
I agree with you, sort of, when you say "...it is an entirely different thing for one of finite cognitive ability to know that true religion is. I'd be surprised if a few of the founders didn't have a similar perspective." I'd strengthen your point to say that the founding embodied this perspective, but in the sense of not knowing which denomination of Christianity (if any) was the pure true religion. Note that I use "Christianity" and "bible-based religion" more or less interchangeably. The founders distinguished a family of denominations each seeking the same bible-based truth from those who rejected the bible altogether. Among the denominations the founders had personal preferences but respected the alternatives.
The evidence for bibliocentrism is ubiquitous; before I get into that (if needed) I'll pause to see if you choose to challenge the identification of bible-based religion with loosely defined Christianity.
As for secularism, my point was about what the fathers gave us. I agree with you, of course, that religious people should enjoy various freedoms, including full participation in government; but the fathers had a different idea, that the government should safeguard the conditions necessary for the promotion of Christianity (and, in passing, other faiths) in all its diversity. This is not the ACLU's idea of tolerating religion within a secular framework. And it may no longer correspond to our nation's wishes. But it was what it was.
OFT, I don't get your question. Could you restate?
Jon,
What's your point? That the founders sought to establish the government on Judeo/Islamo/Christian principles? Hardly. So what of consequence have you contradicted? I never claimed that all religions apart from Christianity spring from non-divine sources. Christianity, in its doctrine of Providence (which Adams explicitly calls out) teaches that all of this diversity is for God's purposes.
In regarding virtue as the test of true religion (as opposed to its purpose, or consequence, or evidence) I think you may be stretching their theology a bit, but in any case the relationship between virtue and faith was one of the hottest topics in American Christian speculation at the time of the founding. To propound on virtue and religion would be to participate in the Christianity of their time and place. For instance, Noll on disputes in New England (Theology in America, p. 127) "The disputes were also about virtue. Arminians, expanding the earlier theology of virtue, repeated the complaint that Calvinism undermined ethics; Edwardeans [referring to Jon Edwards' revival] saw the ethical theories of the Arminians, however, as a disguised form of self-love, while the old Calvinists worried that Edwardean rigor ignored ethical complexity and the gradations of virtue in both society and the church...". Not coincidentally, the Unitarians were very concerned with the theology of virtue.
I actually agree with you that "true religion" could be found in Judaism, certain forms of Deism, Islam, Hinduism, pagan-Greco-Romanism, Native American Spirituality, and Confucianism. I would just point out that you yourself shy away from the alternative formulation, which I would not attribute to the founders, that all these other religions were the true religion. Providence has prepared mankind both for evangelization and for society and civilization. Other religions, philosophies, and human wisdom are all part of this preparation. This is all very mainstream Christianity.
As for true religion being limited to overriding Providence (an explicitly Christian doctrine) and future state of rewards and punishments (a broader doctrine), this is the most liberal interpretation, not the central position. The other extreme explicitly required adherence to Protestantism and would exclude even Catholicism from the civic religion. The mainstream was neither of these positions.
To put the point simply: I argue they believed all these religions led to the same God (were valid ways to God) with Christianity being the quickest way up the mountain because of the superiority of Jesus' moral teachings.
Orthodox Christianity, on the other hand, believes Christianity to be true, the other religions to be false. And it's not Jesus' moral teachings that save men but His Atonement or Grace.
Kristo: "I'll pause to see if you choose to challenge the identification of bible-based religion with loosely defined Christianity."
I have no basis to challenge. I think that terms such as Christianity should be defined by the individuals using them. I'd also agree that your definition is a fair collective representation of the founders ... meaning that your position is inclusive of all that thought themselves Christian, but is also exclusive of the divisive claims regarding who is *not* Christian.
I think it is important to acknowledge that that the founders, as individuals, favored their perspective of Christianity, and that they generally agreed to suspend authoritative / collective judgement upon the perspectives of others which they found objectionable.
In this sense, I am much less interested in their religious perspectives than I am in their respect for individual liberty to profess, embrace, and practice religion as they choose provided such practice did not infringe upon the "rights of conscience" of others.
As you might infer, I have nearly no interest in safe guarding collective liberty, but only individual liberty (I just don't think there can be any practical threats to collective liberty).
Regarding your comment: "[...] the fathers had a different idea, that the government should safeguard the conditions necessary for the promotion of Christianity [...]"
Can you be more clear, some examples perhaps? ... this may be an example of where I'd be concerned about a collective acting at the expense of individual liberty. However, as I'm unaware of any collective promotion of Christianity on behalf of the founders' government, my suspicions are likely due to a lack of context.
Thanks Jon - - Everything did work out fine for my family. We'll never forget the sight of Mt. San Miguel ablaze, but firefighters contained the flames just on the other side of route 94 from our neighborhood.
So sorry merely identifying as a "Christian" in the Founding era is not sufficient to prove they were Christians as you understand the term.>
So, If I get you right, without any words to the contrary, if I claim to you a Christian, and you have no specific evidence to the contrary, because you're Jon Rowe, I'm not a real Christian, right?
Who gave you the authority to judge my or the Founding Fathers' hearts? Or is it because you're Jon Rowe?
The burden of proof is on you to determine if I adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity. If you cannot find anything, you have no authority to accuse me of being a infidel.
Actually OFT, given the Bible/the evangelical understanding of Christianity teaches the "narrow path," the burden is on you to prove that you are more than just a "nominal Christian."
As the Bible says, out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. Homosexuals, Mormons, folks who utterly deny the infallibility of the Bible all claim to be "Christians" in a broad, identificatory sense. "Christian" Churches now marry homosexual couples. You need some kind of specific confession, plus a whole lot more than merely claiming to be "Christian" (which standard among others, Mormons, Roman Catholics, and homosexuals could meet) to prove someone is a "Christian" as YOU understand the concept.
What you have written on these threads MEETS that standard. Hamilton didn't meet that standard until the very end of his life. Madison, G. Morris, Wilson, Locke, Clarke, Milton and Washington never met that standard. They also did, with their deeds, things that belied it, and otherwise intimated their non-Trinitarianism in implicit ways (in an era when they had much incentive to do so -- they could have been at worst executed, at best, publicly ruined).
Jefferson, Franklin, J. Adams, Priestley, Price, and Newton said things on record which clearly flunked your standard.
Proving my assertions via primary sources (which I have over the past 5 years, done) would take either a very long (100 plus page) article, or a book. I'll let you know when either come out.
Actually OFT, given the Bible/the evangelical understanding of Christianity teaches the "narrow path," the burden is on you to prove that you are more than just a "nominal Christian.">
If you don't mind, I will move this to the top post, maybe Frazer or Babka will respond.
OFT: "The burden of proof is on you to determine if I adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity."
I'll butt it again ... The burden is not on Jon as he has made no claim regarding whether or not you adhere to the fundamentals of Christianity.
His claim is that the founders did not adhere to orthodox principles of Christianity .... and he has carried that burden with a well reasoned argument, accompanied by evidnece.
Your comments infer to me that you are quite certain of the propriety of your Christian credentials and their congruence with that of the founders.
If that is the case, the burden is for you to carry.
Ick. The burden of proof is shared by all, and often avoided. That's why everyone's talking past each other.
Me, meself, am not amused, entertained, or enlightened.
In a post re: FocusOnFamily pulling an item re: Mormon Glenn Beck, it is said:"FOF are using the test of orthodoxy to exclude Mormons from the concept of 'Christianity.'"
Well -- um, er, uh --- yeah. Duh! What else would be used other than "orthodoxy" to define who is/is not a Christian?
It should be noted, however, that operationally, de facto, in the political arena, the FOF leaders are atheists whose professed Christian faith has had NOTHING to do with their political works. Sad to say that instead of acting like Bible-believing Christians FIRST, these "leaders" have been, FIRST, Republican Party cheerleaders. They have sold their Christian birthright for a mess of partisan, political pottage -- which is sin.
Visit us, please, to hear, among other things, a scalding critique of Bush's 8-year legacy of un-Godly, un-Constitutional government; also hear a comment on a recent Huckabee performance titled " How NOT To Argue The Homosexual 'Marriage' Issue; and, soon,coming up, an interview with Frank Schaeffer which reveals, clearly, that one of us is crazy.
Comments welcome...
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
Oh, sorry, PS -- my email is JLof@aol.com
John Lofton,
Personally, your comment does strike a cord with me, but I think it inappropriate to advertise here.
However, I do hope you will return and particpate in the discssion.
Lindsey, if you delete John's post, kill mine as well.
I don't think we should delete Mr. Lofton's posts. His theology sure as Hell ain't my cup of tea; but he has a long and distinguished past. How many of us can boast to have debated/interacted with, among others, Frank Zappa and Allen Ginsberg.
Thanks, Brother Rowe -- and all I got was this lousy T-shirt!
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Post a Comment