Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wisconsin Gazette)   Holy cow. Third of Americans support Christianity as official religion   (wisconsingazette.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Americans, Christianity, churches, North Carolina Republicans, school prayer  
•       •       •

4922 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Apr 2013 at 12:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



251 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-04-08 02:04:09 PM  

SkinnyHead: The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.  It is illogical to say that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Establishment Clause so as to prohibit state establishments when the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect state establishments.


Were there any existing state establishments left when the 14th went into effect?
 
2013-04-08 02:04:40 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.


I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.
 
2013-04-08 02:06:52 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


This. America doesn't have an "official religion" for a friggin' reason - that whole "freedom" concept.

nocturnal001: Even if it were not strictly constitutional, that doesn't mean it's not pants on head retarded.


And, this, basically.
 
2013-04-08 02:10:07 PM  
no worries heathens.. as the Latino population continues to grow and represents an ever increasing percentage of the overall population, Christianity will remain the dominant religion in these United States for many more millenia.
 
2013-04-08 02:10:49 PM  
Sweet.  Then let's do something crazy, like elect a Mormon to president and force everyone to convert to Mormonism.
 
2013-04-08 02:15:28 PM  

ThatGuyGreg: Meaning 66% of Americans don't... I'm OK with that.


I don't care if 99.99% are for it.  The Bill of Rights makes it damned clear that This Is Not Something That Any Power Of Government Can be Used To Do.  It is Off Limits.  It is stated this way so that no majority, no matter how populous, can use the lethal power of government to impose on a minority.

It cannot be done under the present form of government without going through the amendment process, or outright declaring that we're done with this Constitution thing and we're just making up as we go along.

It cannot be done any more than it is possible to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, or compel someone to testify against themselves, or to conduct searches without probable cause, or deprive people of property without due process of law, or deny a speedy trial, or... or...

Huh.

I guess the revolution won't start until troops are being quartered in your homes in peacetime, because apparently we're waiting for a full ten out of ten before we declare the federal government to be in rebellion against the nation.  Nine out of ten, and we eat chips and watch TV.
 
2013-04-08 02:15:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


Think you misunderstand state religion. "State", especially in this case, means national.

Yes, I know the US is made up of 50 states but that is actually a bit of a misnomer from when they were seen as independent sovereign areas. That ended when the States became federally joined.
 
2013-04-08 02:17:36 PM  

Kali-Yuga: No it was founded on the Enlightenment philosophy of men like Locke, Montesquieu, Rosseau and others. Only one of the founding fathers can be considered a christian, John Jay. Jefferson and the rest were deists and no fans of christianity. In no sense whatsoever was this country founded as or based on any christian ideas.


madgonad: The US wasn't founded on Judeo-anything. The Founding Fathers were a mix of scholars, deists, and men of great faith. They all brought something to the party. Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were obvious Deists. Hell, Jefferson edited Jesus and miracles out of the Bible! There weren't any JEWS to be found. In fact, many of the Founders would be considered anti-Semitic based upon their positions and interactions with European financial structures that were heavily Jewish. The term Judeo-Christian came into use AFTER WW2 and the Holocaust.


You're going to have to define founding fathers.  At least four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were full time Christian Ministers.  Amongst other signers, a bunch were Episcopalians, several were Presbyterians, Baptists, and Quakers. All Christian religions, last I checked.   Many of these same men were at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and the religious affiliations of that body were quite similar to the signers.

And, while the term Judeo-Christian had not yet been minted, the philosophy had certainly been established, regardless of what it was called.  There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.

All those men of the Enlightenment whose philosophy the founders adopted?  Locke was a baptized member of the Church of England, Montesquieu was a Catholic (although not devout), and Rousseau was a Calvinist.  Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.  God's existence is a subject of debate.  The existence of what could be referred to as God's Laws is beyond dispute.  It is that philosophy that influenced our founding.  Not the religion.
 
2013-04-08 02:19:06 PM  

joeflood: Sweet.  Then let's do something crazy, like elect a Mormon to president and force everyone to convert to Mormonism.


I for one, welcome our magical underpants wearing overlords.


Although for my money, nothing beats scientology crazy.  That would really screw with foreign nations.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:08 PM  

voodoolady: Absolutely we can point out where we think the court is wrong. I think Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly, for example. But there might be a difference between thinking one case being decided incorrectly and thinking that 100 years of precedent is unconstitutional. And establishing a state religion deprives a person of liberty.


That's questionable.  As long as everyone has the right of free exercise, a state establishment cannot compel anyone to believe or worship.  A person who sees a cross on a state building has not been deprived of liberty.
 
2013-04-08 02:23:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


You're right about the 1st Amendment not preventing a State from establishing a state religion, and I think a lot of people miss/don't realize that. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment does. It just sounds to me that you disagree with the Court's interpretation that a state religion would effect a person's liberty or subject them to different treatment. But like you said, we are allowed to disagree with the Court. I disagree with some of the Court's rulings that the first clauses of amendments don't have meaning, but, just to repeat myself, that doesn't make their interpretation unconstitutional.
 
2013-04-08 02:24:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: voodoolady: Absolutely we can point out where we think the court is wrong. I think Kelo v. New London was decided incorrectly, for example. But there might be a difference between thinking one case being decided incorrectly and thinking that 100 years of precedent is unconstitutional. And establishing a state religion deprives a person of liberty.

That's questionable.

..

To you apparently. But it's pretty much accepted by everyone else.
 
2013-04-08 02:26:25 PM  

pciszek: Were there any existing state establishments left when the 14th went into effect?


I don't think so.
 
2013-04-08 02:26:54 PM  
Our law is most certainly not based on 10 commandments.

I am the LORD thy God: nope... nothing in law stating that.

Thou shalt have no other gods: nope unconstitutional

No graven images or likenesses: nope unconstitutional

Not take the LORD's name in vain: free speach

Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.

Honour thy father and thy mother: nothing in law about that.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Thou shalt not steal: universal mankind religion.

Thou shalt not bear false witness: not usually a law except to authorities.

Thou shalt not covet: nope not a law. Goes against the American dream.


So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.
 
2013-04-08 02:28:09 PM  

CleanAndPure: Our law is most certainly not based on 10 commandments.

I am the LORD thy God: nope... nothing in law stating that.

Thou shalt have no other gods: nope unconstitutional

No graven images or likenesses: nope unconstitutional

Not take the LORD's name in vain: free speach

Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.

Honour thy father and thy mother: nothing in law about that.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Thou shalt not steal: universal mankind religion.

Thou shalt not bear false witness: not usually a law except to authorities.

Thou shalt not covet: nope not a law. Goes against the American dream.


So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.


In Maryland, adultery is a crime.
 
2013-04-08 02:28:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: Keizer_Ghidorah: Many, many things you enjoy and take for granted are "not specifically in the constitution". Would you be so quick to give them up if it meant making Christianity the national religion by ignoring everything the judicial branch has set into law? Why do you want a national religion, anyway? You're not being oppressed, you're not being persecuted, you can worship perfectly fine without forcing it on the entire country.

I don't want a national religion. That's prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  1/3 of Americans said they support a state establishment.  State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.  The 14th Amendment incorporates individual rights, like free exercise of religion.  The Establishment Clause, which was designed to protect state establishments, is not an individual right.  That's why it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  A state establishment still could not force anyone to worship, because that would violate an individual's right of free exercise of religion.


It would still make one religion sovereign over all others, something that this country was NOT intended to do.
 
2013-04-08 02:36:52 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 02:41:21 PM  
i246.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 02:42:09 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Just TRY forcing me into a church and praying to Republican Jeebus! I'll be muttering verses from the Necronomicon under my breath.


Klaatu Barada Necktie
 
2013-04-08 02:42:36 PM  

voodoolady: You're right about the 1st Amendment not preventing a State from establishing a state religion, and I think a lot of people miss/don't realize that. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment does. It just sounds to me that you disagree with the Court's interpretation that a state religion would effect a person's liberty or subject them to different treatment. But like you said, we are allowed to disagree with the Court. I disagree with some of the Court's rulings that the first clauses of amendments don't have meaning, but, just to repeat myself, that doesn't make their interpretation unconstitutional.


I realize we are bound by what the Supreme Court says.  But there is argument to be made that it makes no sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause.  At least one Supreme Court Justice thinks so, anyway.
 
2013-04-08 02:44:20 PM  
If no rights are infringed by establishing a state religion, what exactly is the point of establishing a state religion?
 
2013-04-08 02:45:35 PM  
The purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect existing state establishments.

i935.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 02:46:35 PM  

CleanAndPure: So out of 10 commandments... more are unconstitutional than are applied. How the hell can anyone say our laws are based on 10 commandments.


Because people are f*cking uneducated fools.  We live in a nation where one of the major political parties mocks science and considers education elitist.  They also happen to be the pro-religion party.

And "dumb" and "religious" are the primary attributes of their voting bloc.
 
2013-04-08 02:50:24 PM  
Surprised it's that low. I live in the northeast and I know people who want a theocracy.
 
2013-04-08 03:07:05 PM  
I live in the UK, where we have an official state religion (Anglicanism). Our bishops are apportioned seats in the House of Lords (equivalent to your Senate).  Conversely, our government gets to pick who will be bishops in our church.  Our head of state, Elizabeth II, is also the high priestess of our official state religion.

It's great.  I love living in a theocracy.  I know that whatever happens, I won't have to suffer the shame and indignity of knowing that my head of state is a catholic. I feel sorry for you yanks that don't appreciate how wonderful it is.
 
2013-04-08 03:12:44 PM  
I'm sure it's been said already, but the actual take-away from this is that 33% of people living in the United States of America aren't members of it's social contract apparently.
 
2013-04-08 03:22:45 PM  

CleanAndPure: Remember the sabbath day: nothing in law about that.


I take it you have never lived in Massachusetts.  Fortunately, the fines haven't been updated to reflect inflation, and some businesses are willing to pay them.

Thou shalt not kill: ooh finally... although this is a pan-region law. Plus we do have executions.

...of which "Christians" are the biggest supports.

Thou shalt not commit adultery: nope... not in law.

Still a law in some places.  Rarely enforced.
 
2013-04-08 03:23:26 PM  
Remember when we had an official religion in the US? Good times.

aislingrunswithunicorns.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-08 03:33:52 PM  

Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.


What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.
 
2013-04-08 03:40:22 PM  
"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." (Mark 12:17)

Even Jesus wants separation of church and state.
 
2013-04-08 03:44:50 PM  

madgonad: I wonder how the pole would change if the language expressed was that the church with the largest number of American adherents would be the Official Church of the US, see census based chart:

Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!


40-60 million agnostics, atheists or 'no religious affiliation'.
5-6 million Jews
Another 5 million Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.

Yeah, this ain't gonna fly.
 
2013-04-08 03:50:20 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-08 03:53:55 PM  

HazMatt: Overfiend: God's Hubris: Believe women are incapable of making decisions about their own bodies. Check.

This argument/point is far from the truth.

Those who are Pro-life arent against a woman making decisions about her own body.  Pro-lifers believe the unborn baby (fetus) is a living being - and that's who they wish to protect.  Most Pro-lifers would care less if a woman wanted to go out and:

Get tattoos
Get piercings/body modifications
Get cosmetic surgery
Get a hysterectomy
Or anything else for that matter...

...except dont hurt the baby inside of them.

What is the intersection between these "Pro-lifers" and those that are opposed to a woman learning about / receiving birth control? I could respect the "protect the baby" argument if it didn't so often look more like medieval slut-shaming.


I agree - many people who claim to be Pro-life are so against contraception (when that could prevent pregnancy, thereby no need for an abortion) it makes no sense.

Many Pro-lifers are also rabid Death Penalty proponents - which, again, makes no sense...
 
2013-04-08 04:00:14 PM  
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you." - Matthew 5:38-42

How can you have 'Christian Nation' and follow the teachings of Christ? The first jack hole who came in could take whatever they wanted and you are prohibited from stopping him (in fact it are asked to give more than demanded of you) by the teachings of your Savior.

These people are clueless hypocrites (like most "Christians") who don't follow what the guy actually said, but rather a dogma they pieced together from the parts they wish to abide by (persecuting gays for example).
 
2013-04-08 04:17:26 PM  
They'll never agree on denomination...

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me."
I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"He said, "Yes."
I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?"He said, "A Christian."
I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?"He said, "Protestant."
I said, "Me, too! What franchise?"He said, "Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?"He said, "Northern Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region."
I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?"He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912."
I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
 
2013-04-08 04:22:10 PM  
So 33% want to defer responsibility for their actions and put faith in a patchwork of outright inventions and a zombie Jewish messiah to get them off the ethical hook and rationalize their narcissistic tendencies?

I expected it to be higher.
Good work, America -- you may be coming around after all...
 
2013-04-08 04:29:12 PM  

eggrolls: Catholic - 68.5 million
Southern Baptist - 16.1 million
Methodist - 7.8 million
Mormons - 6 million
Church of Christ - 5.5 million
National Baptist - 5 million
Lutheran - 4.5 million

So it looks like the US is going Papist!

40-60 million agnostics, atheists or 'no religious affiliation'.
5-6 million Jews
Another 5 million Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus.


Where do the megachurches fit into this accounting?  They seem to be run as private businesses rather than being affiliated with any one denomination.
 
2013-04-08 04:36:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: State establishments are not prohibited by the 1st Amendment.


You can keep saying that until the cows come home and it still won't be true.

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.

Would you actually argue that a state could stifle free speech or freedom of the press? Because there's no distinction between those and the establishment clause. You could not be more wrong in your line of reasoning.
 
2013-04-08 04:39:14 PM  
Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??
 
2013-04-08 04:43:08 PM  

James!: I say this doesn't go far enough.  The pledge of allegence should be replaced with 5 minutes of speaking in tongues.


I'm okay with this.

Also, we should have more stones lying around in Congress just in case.
 
2013-04-08 04:44:01 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.
 
2013-04-08 04:48:27 PM  
That figure seems really low?
 
2013-04-08 04:48:35 PM  

randomjsa: Would you actually argue that a state could stifle free speech or freedom of the press? Because there's no distinction between those and the establishment clause. You could not be more wrong in your line of reasoning.


Before the 14th amendment, states could and did stifle free speech.  You could be jailed for making public anti-slavery speeches in some states, for example.  The 14th amendment crammed the bill of rights down the states' throats, no matter what SkinnyHead says.
 
2013-04-08 04:50:04 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??


10% tithe straight from the top of your paycheck to Westboro Baptist or whatever version of religion gets picked.
 
2013-04-08 04:51:44 PM  

I_C_Weener: You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.


In light of recent events, Colorado and Washington need to choose a few more official state things.
 
2013-04-08 04:58:02 PM  
Crowd member to Adlai Stevenson "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"
Stevenson: "That's not enough, madam, I need a majority."
 
2013-04-08 05:04:01 PM  
Mr. Right:  There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.

Sorry but you lose what little credibility you may have had with this statement regardless of how broadly you want to define the term "founding fathers."

The first four commandments are expressly forbidden by our Constitution. Of the ten, only two are expressly illegal, and even then only under certain circumstances, these happen to be the same laws which exist in every other culture and have since long before christianity was invented. Our laws have a basis in Code of Hammurabi and The Magna Carta.
 
2013-04-08 05:04:59 PM  

Mr. Right: There is a reason that the 10 Commandments are enshrined in the Supreme Court - they are a substantial basis of American Law.


Really? What laws are based on:

1st: "Thou shall have no other gods before me:

2nd: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

3rd: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

4th: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy."

5th: "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."

7th: "You shall not commit adultery.

10th: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's." 3 out of 10.


The only commandments that have any laws "based" on then are: Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal and arguably Thou shall not bear false witness.  Frankly, killing, stealing and lying were frowned on before the 10 commandments, I'm sure.
 
2013-04-08 05:08:36 PM  

Mr. Right: Try as you may, you cannot deny the influence of Biblical philosophy on the founding of this country.


No? Could, oh, say Thomas Jefferson?:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

The Treaty of Tripoli


Ah, what the fark did he know about the founding of this country?
 
2013-04-08 05:12:53 PM  

I_C_Weener: Lionel Mandrake: Does this mean they want a Department of Christianity?  A Secretary of Religion?  A bureaucracy to codify and regulate worship?

WTF does "official" mean??

You know how your state has an official State Flower?  Kinda like that.


Other than establishing a state flower isn't forbidden by the Constitution.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report