Theocracy, The First Amendement, and Christians

 

http://fitnessfortheoccasion.wordpress.com/2007/04/18/stand-against-theocracy/

            This blog I found made me ponder the current members of our national government and what exactly our Constitution says as far as religion goes. These bloggers have practiced their rights under the First Amendment and now it is my turn. This blog speaks of our rights as citizens of this great nation, but for some reason these rights do not apply to our leaders. God forbid if the president quotes a Bible verse or talks about God to the public, right? While this may bring offense to some in this nation such as the members of the “stand against theocracy” blog, I only find it reaffirming of the rights that I hold and the rights that millions have fought and died for. The same rights that allow me to practice and preach my faith. I feel the same thing when newscasters and celebrities speak of their beliefs or lifestyles that I do not agree with. While what they are saying may offend me I know that it is their right, and I would rather they denounce my God and my beliefs than ever have their rights taken away from them.

            The second part of this blog was a call to stop attempts of fundamentalist religion to take over the government. If by “fundamentalist religion” they mean Christians, then we have work to do. Now I am sure there are some insane and extremely radical Christians who are like this (even though I have never met one), I doubt any of them are in our government. This reminded me of the importance of this blog. We need to give a voice to the real Christians; the intelligent and the well spoken who know what Christ and his message are really about. There are a few intelligent Christians out there now but they are greatly outnumbered by the radicals of our group.

            The blog that I read was a misconception of what we are like and what we are trying to do to the government. It is extremely sad to see this because this is the name we are given. Less people will have this picture of us if we start to stand up and give reasonable arguments to back our faith (as the first amendment has given us the right to do so).

            COME ON BLOGGERS! STAND UP AND PRACTICE YOUR RIGHTS!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Advertisements

16 Comments

  1. I’m honored to think my blog got you thinking.
    A few points:
    Quoting a bible verse or talking about God is fine and dandy. Saying this is a Christian nation (and non Christians need to “deal”), or making laws based on Christian notions of right and wrong is not fine. It is establishing Christianity as the state religion. Again to be clear, there is nothing wrong with politicians affirming their faith, or talking about it. Pushing that faith into law is the problem.

    When I say fundamentalist, I mean Dominionists and their ilk. People who feel compelled to use their beliefs enforce how people act. The recent supreme court decision was an excellent example. Another would be putting the ten commandments in front of a court of law. (Which I hold to be problematic because it creates the impression that the Judeo-Christian set of laws drives our own laws, and that those who follow a different path are less than equal before our laws. Again, establishment of a particular religion).

    It is very exciting to hear that you folks are raring to speak out and take part. This country does need intelligent Christians to speak up and take the discourse back from radical right wing Christians who have been monopolizing it. I think you’ll find a few good intelligent Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans, and Atheists who are ready and willing to join their voices with yours.

    Stand up and give voice to your position. Check out other folks who are doing so as well (they are on my blogroll). Read through my posts against theocracy. I think you’ll find that we have much in common.

    In general, every country with a majority religion seems to have its fundamentalists. It is good to have a strong counter point.

  2. Just to clarify…

    Until Bush, Congress, The Supreme Court, etc. break out the Umim and Thummim for decision-making and welcome a Prophet to speak on behalf of the Lord himself we are quite aways away from being a “Theocracy.” So lets not be liberal (no pun intended) with the use of the term.

    And Dominionists are by and large, ignorant-of-the-New-Covenant-have-not-read-the-book-of-Galatians-or-the-book-of-Hebrews-legalists.

    On to the point: I am curious what other “notions” should laws be based upon? And how can we define “right” and “wrong” unless there are moral absolutes? And if there are moral absolutes, who or what determines them?

    Being totally realistic, every politician pushes their faith in the making of laws. Every person has a core set of beliefs, not simply Christians or any other religious person. Everyone is, in a certain sense, banking on the rightness of their ideas about God, Humanity, Politics, Ethics, etc. Can you blame someone just because their faith is Christian?

    Come to think of it, secularism is just as much a religion as Christianity so wouldn’t that be establishing a state religion? I can see the speech now. “America is a ‘We Not To Sure About Whether God is Real so He Can’t Be a Part of Our Decision Making Process Nation.'”

  3. Hey C.A.,
    Every blue law, every restriction on a woman’s body, and every politician who calls this a Christian nation moves us closer to theocracy. I am being precise with my use of the term.

    I am surprised that you cannot think of other basis for laws. Morality is not monopolized by religion. One can use reason. One can appeal to a wealth of secular humanism too, if one so desires. Ethics need not come down to what a holy book says.

    Not every politician pushes their faith making laws. How on earth is that realistic? Not all politicians have faith, or are active in their faith. Additionally, some who are active may view separation of Church and State as an important part of our country.

    I do not blame anyone for their faith, not one bit. I am saying do not use your faith to determine who I act, and to restrict me based on your beliefs. This should be a very clear distinction!

    Secularism is not a religion at all. It is a lack of it. There is no secular Bible. There is no secular “authority”. Why do we need to be any kind of nation? Why must we be a Christian nation? What compelling reason is there for us to give up our freedoms and submit to rule of law governed by the Christian Bible?

  4. Just to let you know, Secularism is, in fact, a religion. Religion is simply a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons. I think you fit the bill for that description. All religion takes is a belief, and you, my indignant friend, have it. To say that your beliefs are not a religion is pure fallacy. Do you need a holy book or an authority in order to have a religion nowadays? Is that the modern criteria for faith? If so, I guess that I was sorely mistaken in concluding that all you needed was an exercise in BELIEF in somone or something, be it an all-powerful deity or a humanistic principle. So to say that secularism is a lack of religion is lie. You are trying to push your set of beliefs on our government just as much as we are! The only difference is that you think your claim is free of faith and religion. You think your claim is right because it allows people the freedom to be who they want to be, PROVIDED that they just accept what you believe. Call me crazy, but that strikes me as a little hypocrital. Just a teensy bit. To be honest, there is no distinction between belief and action, at least in terms of how they affect your interaction wuth people. Whatever you believe will play a part in how you interact with people, and whatever you believe will also play a part in how people interact with YOU. It’s simple, but true. Therefore it seems to foolish to admonish someone for restricting you based on their beliefs when you are trying to do the exact same thing with your point of view. Also, what do you believe is the source of reason? Because I always thought that a man’s reason could be determined by his religion as well.
    All that aside, props for the use of the word, “ilk”, and may I inquire as to why you use a blue square for your avatar?

  5. marcelonicus,

    You can call secularism a religion. Or atheism. Or “non-religion”. It won’t make it so. It is a very clumsy attempt to subvert arguments against having religion dictate government. Essentially it boils down to this:
    Should our laws be written be appeals to reason, or by appeals to dogmatic authority?

    Do you need a holy book or an authority in order to have a religion nowadays?

    Pretty much, yes.

    If so, I guess that I was sorely mistaken in concluding that all you needed was an exercise in BELIEF in somone or something, be it an all-powerful deity or a humanistic principle.

    So is math a religion then? How about martial arts? Ethics? Anything based on a principle?
    Religion involves that which is beyond the natural world (or a re-thinking of the natural world to suggest it too, has a deeper reality). In essence, religion can also be said to involve faith. Pure belief devoid of reason. Secularism is a description, not a faith, not a club, not a political party.

    You think your claim is right because it allows people the freedom to be who they want to be, PROVIDED that they just accept what you believe.

    I think letting people be who they want to be is correct. It should go without saying that one must accept this freedom to exercise it…

    To be honest, there is no distinction between belief and action, at least in terms of how they affect your interaction wuth people.

    One could start a whole conversation about this. To keep things short: not all beliefs are acted upon, and not all beliefs are the kinds of beliefs that can be acted upon. Hence these beliefs are, in the final result, distinct from actions.

    You are trying to push your set of beliefs on our government just as much as we are!

    If trying to keep Biblical reasoning from writing our laws entails pushing my beliefs, then I certainly am.

    Also, what do you believe is the source of reason? Because I always thought that a man’s reason could be determined by his religion as well.

    I’m honestly not sure what the source of reason itself is. Thats a very interesting philosophical question!

    All that aside, props for the use of the word, “ilk”, and may I inquire as to why you use a blue square for your avatar?

    Thanks! And the avatar is just a bit of blue sky from the picture I used for my header on my blog. I couldn’t really think of anything better (or find a good picture I took), and I liked the idea of an open blue sky.

  6. fitmessfortheoccasion:
    In response to your first comment:
    Where do you think laws and our morals came from? Maybe the latest abortion bill seems like a Christian rule that is being imposed on you but if that is the case the laws against murder and theivery are also “Christian rules” that are being imposed on you. Those rules came from the ten commandments. Why are you not offended by them? Where is the line drawn?
    And I have another question: If Christians cannot push for their beliefs to be in law, why can secularists? A politian makes a law banning a certain type of abortion, and you are offended because the politiian is imposing on your beleifs. However, a politian makes a law allowing free range of abortion and my beflefs have no importance! Why is it that no one can be offended anymore unless they are a Christian? Everyone turns their head when it is a homosexual, african-american, latino, atheist, and the like being offended. But you offend a Christian by trying to remove their faith from parts of the country and no one even knows there is something to turn their head towards.
    I realize that “ONE NATION UNDER GOD.” and “IN GOD WE TRUST” may offend you, but those words are our history! Not all of the founding fathers were saved but they chose those words to represent the unity of this nation. Read into the words; “ONE NATION” “WE.” You are so blinded by the word “GOD” that you cannot take a moment to appreciate what they started. God is part of the history of this country whether you like it or not. While you might think this is another pull from the Christians to oppress your beliefs it is only a plead from a history buff to respect what this nation was founded on, whether you believe it or not.

  7. “Every blue law, every restriction on a woman’s body, and every politician who calls this a Christian nation moves us closer to theocracy. I am being precise with my use of the term.”

    Every blue law is a Christian law? Every abortion law is a Christian law? How are you defining “theocracy?”

    “I am surprised that you cannot think of other basis for laws. Morality is not monopolized by religion. One can use reason. One can appeal to a wealth of secular humanism too, if one so desires. Ethics need not come down to what a holy book says.”

    I did not say that morality is monpolized by religion. I am saying that morality finds it source in the moral absolutes as defined by the character and law of God. I am also saying that reason itself exists only as God is a reasonable being and we are created in His image.

    “Not every politician pushes their faith making laws. How on earth is that realistic? Not all politicians have faith, or are active in their faith. Additionally, some who are active may view separation of Church and State as an important part of our country.
    I do not blame anyone for their faith, not one bit. I am saying do not use your faith to determine who I act, and to restrict me based on your beliefs. This should be a very clear distinction!”

    I beg to differ. Politicians push their faith by every law they make. If a politician believes that abortion is wrong, even if he is not a Christian, he is pushing his beliefs about the status of unborn children. Same as a politician that passes laws to the contrary, he or she does not believe that a child in the womb is in fact a child, so he pushes for a law protecting a woman’s “right to choose.”

    “Secularism is not a religion at all. It is a lack of it. There is no secular Bible. There is no secular “authority”. Why do we need to be any kind of nation? Why must we be a Christian nation? What compelling reason is there for us to give up our freedoms and submit to rule of law governed by the Christian Bible?”

    You stated yourself that the authority for secularism is “reason.” And I would ask where this “reason” comes from? I would whole-heartedly agree that we do not need to be defined as any particular type of nation, though I would cringe as being described as a “godless” nation. I believe that we desire two different types of freedom. Yours being one of actions only being restrained by one’s own conscience or the collective conscience of the society one lives in, mine being one of fulfilling the life that God has created me for (sorry about ending a sentence with a preposition.) And therein is the compelling reason to submit to rule of law governed by the Christian Bible, I believe it is the only way to truly live free.

    Thanks for the great challenges.

  8. El Queso,
    The question is a very good one. I believe the difference is in laws that come purely from a religious authority, rather than those that are rooted in rationality and ethics. So laws on abortion would be appropriate, so long as they are governed by science (when life begins) and ethics, rather than absolutism rooted in religious thought. But a very good point!

    Again, there seems to be this common fallacy that secularists are a religious group. This is patently ridiculous. As is the comparison. The difference is not one of “removing one’s faith”, but of imposing it. As soon as your personal faith needs to regulate the actions of someone who does not share it, it is imposing. This is not a question of being offended. It is a question of forcing your beliefs on others. There is no comparison to be made.

    They do not offend me personally, although I do think “under God” is a bit odd (Isn’t he everywhere?). “In God We Trust” sounds nice (but why on currency?). The problem is with the state making religion official. No one really cares about atheists, so this hasn’t been a big issue. But imagine if it read “One Nation Under Christ”, or “In The Prophet We Trust”. Would you see the issue then?

    What our government stands for today comes from history, but history need not be a chain locking it into stasis. This is more a dodge than an appeal.

    A couple questions:
    What is there to “turn their heads towards”? What are you saying here?
    Do you really think me blind to the expression of unity? What one must appreciate in a democracy is the active, churning exchange of ideas, and the underlying unity that binds us together. One can look critically at our government without losing one iota of that.

  9. CA Hervey,

    I define a theocracy as “A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.” (the free dictionary).
    So having laws that come from a religious authority moves us towards that system of government. The blue laws are, in fact, rooted in Christian morals of the colonies. The puritans in good old Massachusetts, for example. One great example that stands out is the special treatment of sunday. Some stores had to be closed on sunday. In MA, retailers were required to pay time and a half on sunday.

    Ok. So morality is not monopolized by religion, but only exists by virtue of God. While I can see a very consistent religious line of logic branching out and under that statement, it only makes my point regarding separation of church and state that much sharper. After all, if our conception of what is good and what is evil is purely based in God, what room is there for grey? What room for debate? For introspection?

    Faith and belief are different things. So pushing one’s beliefs is not the same as pushing one’s faith. Again, this all comes down to where you root your beliefs. In faith or in reason. There is a very big difference.

    Reason is not alive. It is not written down in a book to be referred to and argued over by theologians. It is the exercise of our ability to think and put thoughts in logical relation to one another. It is that faculty of mind that we’ve been graced with, that allows analysis and understanding. As for the source of reason, one could say God, one could say evolution, it is a fascinating subject, but it would be a digression.

    I believe one must be free to live life as one chooses. If we force everyone to fulfill the life God has created, and to live by that (law governed by the Christian Bible), then we have become a theocratic state, and lost every bit of democracy and promise that emerged with the birth of this nation.
    To live one’s life by the Bible is noble, but to require others to do so is spiritual totalitarianism.

    There are many paths towards God. Why should this nation pick one for us?

    PS
    Sure thing, and likewise thanks for the fun debate!

  10. I am sorry to say guys but I agree with Fitnessfortheoccasion. The fact is that we are a nation based on freedom. Separation of church and state is part of that. You can create laws outside of religious thought. Reason and history can be a fine teacher of what works and what doesn’t, what should and shouldn’t be allowed. The fact is that we have a natural distinction of right and wrong. Whether it is a God given conscience or an evolutionary trait created by the general will to survive. Locke and Hobbes discussed this years ago with natural right and natural law, and I stand by them. I love Christianity with all my heart but there is no place for it in government, or at least ours. Arguing about what is and isn’t religion is beating around the bush. Why argue what is religion when we all know what isn’t, basic human logic. As far as abortion I would love to talk to you about that Fitnessfortheoccasion.

  11. It is not religion but it indeed is belief. Some may even take it to the point of relgious devotion.

    The street also goes both ways zasz2003, if you insist on freedom of an irrelgious government (which I do not believe exists, not because of any so-called Christian Nation, rather because no one is irreligious) then we may equally insist on laws that are moral according to our standards of morality, those derived from Scripture. I believe our freedom is a freedom “to” not a freedom “from.” Enormous difference.

    You can indeed create laws outside of religious thought but whether or not these laws are moral is, in my opinion, a religious question. Of course I make exception for morally grey laws like a 21-year old drinking age, where the law is rooted in common sense, hence the nation of Canada is not in sin.

    Let’s not forget that history began somewhere, as did reason. What works and what doesn’t never sprang into existence by accident or by process.

    “Whether it is a God given conscience or an evolutionary trait created by the general will to survive.” – Are you serious? It can’t be both and it matters infinitely which is true.

    “Arguing about what is and isn’t religion is beating around the bush.”

    Not really. Semantical maybe but the basic assertion that men stand and act according to their beliefs, whether Christian or Agnostic, is an important one. The myth of neutrality is what I have a problem with.

    ” Why argue what is religion when we all know what isn’t, basic human logic.”

    Basic human logic is only “basic” because God exists and we are created by him. That sounds pretty religious to me. And lets do away with this nonsense about faith being contrary to reason or at least in the absence of it.

  12. Zasz, right on! And I would be happy to discuss abortion with you.

    CA Hervey, plenty of people are irreligious. Atheists, for one. Again, why do our laws need to be derived from scripture? One is either free, or one is not. If you “freedom to” keeps me from exercising my “freedom to”, I am hardly free, am I?

    Of course it is in your opinion. Because for you morality is handed down by God, rather than being an intrinsic trait, or an ideal we strive towards rationally. Whether or not a nation is in sin is quite beyond the point. Churches can make that kind of determination if they want to set foot in politics. Governments should not set foot in Church.

    How do you know that? What works could easily have come about as the result of accident or process. Whether you are talking about “evolution” here, or whether you are talking about methods of government (which is what Zasz was referring to). This point really makes no sense.

    It is a faulty argument to suggest everything is religion. It is like the creationists who oppose evolution, who argue science is a religion. No. It is a means of knowing that involves testing and observing. Not reading and believing. Big difference.

    It sounds pretty religious because you are making it out to be religious. Logic is logic. There is no need to say God created it, or to say that everything God created is of God, and hence religious. By that logic, everything is by nature religious.

    Faith is belief outside of logical proof or evidence. It is belief without reason. By definition.

  13. “Plenty of people are irreligious. Atheists, for one. ”

    I think we are doing the semantical tango but an Atheist is banking on God’s non-existence and conducts his life as such. That is religion, pure and simple.

    “If you “freedom to” keeps me from exercising my “freedom to”, I am hardly free, am I?”

    No you would not be. But again, the street goes both ways. If your beliefs, which shape the laws you would advocate, infringe upon mine, I have equal grounds to cry foul. My point is that “freedom from” is begging for anarchy.

    “Because for you morality is handed down by God, rather than being an intrinsic trait, or an ideal we strive towards rationally.”

    Not at all. The ultimate authority on morality is handed down by God but we all act on intrinsic morality before we ever hear a verse of Scripture. Teleologically speaking, we have the law of God written on our hearts. The problem however is that our internal, intrinsic moral compass can and has gone awry, hence, Hitler, Manson, Stalin and their ilk.

    “Whether or not a nation is in sin is quite beyond the point. ”

    Not really. I was demonstrating the point that not every law or regulation must be a one-for-one equivalent to a chapter and verse in Scripture. A country that legalizes sin (according to my religious conviction) like abortion bears accountability to God for those laws and thus is “in sin.”

    “How do you know that? What works could easily have come about as the result of accident or process. Whether you are talking about “evolution” here, or whether you are talking about methods of government (which is what Zasz was referring to). This point really makes no sense.”

    After rereading my comment, I do see it was a poorly constructed point. My apologies. Allow me a second go at it:

    While I do agree that history is a fine teacher for method of government, I do not think history or even reason is the trump card for law-making. When I said, “what works did not come about by accident or process,” I meant that making laws was and is by and large a moral task that had its beginning before history itself existed (a la creation ex nihilio)

    “There is no need to say God created it, or to say that everything God created is of God, and hence religious. By that logic, everything is by nature religious.”

    Again, hastily formulated rhetoric on my part. I did not connect it verbally as I did mentally. I am saying a belief rooted in logic or science is just as religious as belief rooted in the Bible. I will however drop the use of the term “religious,” so as not to be unclear or semantically snarky and replace it with the term “belief system.”

    I am comfortable with the term “outside.” I was balking at the term “opposed to.” Faith is a-rational. Not rational or non-rational.

  14. Then we can stop the tango. Calling everything under the sun religion, and then saying “See, we have to base government on religion” is not a convincing argument.

    How would my belief’s infringe on yours? You have the right to act, but being able to impose one’s beliefs is not, in and of itself, a right! So how is freedom from begging for anarchy then?

    Hmm, that is a very interesting point on morality! I would also add that is has gone right in a large number of people.

    Good point. So even a theocratic government will have laws that are not based in a religious authority.

    If one accepts the Bible, then yes. Otherwise, not so much. Laws are then a human institution. Making laws is, as I see it, a practical task. One wants to shape society in a given way, and tries to construct laws to do so.

    Ahhh. Sigh of relief on my part! There is such a huge difference between a belief system and a religion! That still doesn’t quite apply though. Logic is not a belief sytem. It is a means of thinking. Science is not a belief system, it is a means of knowing. For example, one could say that prayer is a method, belief is a result. Or religious contemplation yields beliefs and strengthens faith. Similarly, one might gain beliefs through scientific method (gravity exists, it would be cooler if it didn’t), but science itself is just the means to that end, not the end itself.

    Hmmm. I am not certain if faith is opposed to reason or not. It is a fascinating struggle to see one try to reconcile beliefs that come from faith with those that come from reason. I think for a given belief, one must indeed choose. After all, if you have a reason for believing something, it isn’t faith anymore. It is knowledge.

  15. Fitness,
    “The difference is not one of “removing one’s faith”, but of imposing it. As soon as your personal faith needs to regulate the actions of someone who does not share it, it is imposing. This is not a question of being offended. It is a question of forcing your beliefs on others. There is no comparison to be made.”

    I have a comparison. An anti-abortion bill is passed and I am imposing my beliefs on you. A pro-abortion bill is passed and you are imposing your beliefs on me. Its really that simple.

    “The problem is with the state making religion official. No one really cares about atheists, so this hasn’t been a big issue. But imagine if it read “One Nation Under Christ”, or “In The Prophet We Trust”. Would you see the issue then?”

    No one cares about atheists?!? You are joking. Thats all anyone cares about because the atheists seem to always be the victims in the debate!
    While I have a good imagination, it does not read “One Nation Under Christ” and “In the Prophet We Trust.” So I cannot see the issue.

    “What is there to “turn their heads towards”? What are you saying here?”

    From my comment-Everyone turns their head when it is a homosexual, african-american, latino, atheist, and the like being offended. But you offend a Christian by trying to remove their faith from parts of the country and no one even knows there is something to turn their head towards.
    What I am saying here is that people pay attention and care when one of those groups is being offended and having beliefs imposed on them. No one pays attention when it is a Christian who is being offended and having their beliefs imposed upon.

    I want one thing clear: I DO NOT BELIEVE OUR COUNTRY SHOULD BE A THEOCRACY!
    Look at the rule that the Roman Catholic Church had and the mess they made.
    But I think it is a little dramatic to be screaming “theocracy” when Christians are in the Congress and the Presidency.
    When was the last time we were doubting the democracy of this nation because atheists were in the Congress and the Presidency?

  16. elqueso,

    Not so fast. The anti abortion bill would involve imposing beliefs by directly restricting your actions. A pro abortion bill (do you mean China?) would also be the same. However that is not what I am advocating. A pro choice bill would leave the choice up to the individual, in no way restricting your personal actions.

    Christians are made out to be victims as well, and quite often. (“The War on Christmas”, for example). I am sorry to hear you cannot see the issue then. “One Nation Under God” presumes God exists. While I believe this, not everyone does. Having our government state this constitutes official recognition of a religious axiom.

    Yes, people pay attention to hate crimes all the time. However burning a swastika into a grave marker, or beating a gay man to death are just a little different then telling a judge not to display the ten commandments in front of a courthouse.

    Hurray! We agree! No theocracy for the US!
    It’s not meant to be dramatic at all. It is calling attention to the central fact of the matter. If we base our laws and our government on religious authority, we are by dictionary definition theocracy. We do this for some laws, and there are partisans who want us to do this for all laws. Hence joining our voices to say we are opposed to theocracy.

    Never, since aside from one recent brave nontheist, atheists don’t announce themselves as such when they run for office (if any have in fact been elected). We have never had an atheist President. We have had a President who said God talks to him. We have had Presidents who thought this should be a Christian nation. But a President, and American President, who did not believe in God? With the odd Catholic exception, we haven’t even had a non Christian Protestant! We only just recently elected the first Muslim to Congress. In 2006!


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s