Falwell: Media ignored "radical Islamic terrorists ... because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light"
On the March 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Rev. Jerry Falwell baselessly suggested that 18-year-old Sulejman Talovic, who shot nine people at a Salt Lake City mall in February, was a "radical Islamic terrorist," before adding, "[b]ut the press never mentions that -- most of the press -- because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light here in this country." In fact, media outlets have reported that Talovic is a Muslim while also reporting that authorities say there is no evidence that his faith played a part in his actions.
Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, killed five people at Salt Lake City's Trolley Square shopping center before he was shot and killed by police. As Media Matters for America noted when right-wing radio host Michael Savage made a claim similar to Falwell's, a February 14 Associated Press article did, in fact, address the possibility that Talovic's actions were motivated by religion, terrorism, or both. The article reported that "authorities tried to figure out why a teenage Bosnian immigrant committed the rampage and how he got his hands on a gun. FBI agent Patrick Kiernan in Salt Lake City said the bureau had no reason to believe Sulejman Talovic, who was killed by police, was motivated by religious extremism or an act of terrorism." The article also quoted Ajka Omerovic, Talovic's aunt, as saying, "We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists."
According to a February 14 Reuters article, "[W]hen the Bosnian Serbs overran [Srebrenica] in 1995, taking away and massacring some 8,000 Muslim men and boys, Sulejman and his mother were evacuated by the United Nations and later reunited with his father." On February 15, the AP reported that after their village, Talovici, was invaded in 1993, the young Sulejman, his mother, and three siblings escaped on foot to the United Nations-protected enclave of Srebrenica.
A February 16 AP article also touched on the question of whether Talovic's actions were related to religion, noting that Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson "blasted vitriolic Internet postings and e-mails sent to newspapers that suggested the shooter was an Islamic terrorist, calling such criticism from 'fact-free people' unjustified and outrageous."
From the March 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
FALWELL: And since 9-1-1, we've had about a dozen little incidents -- not little for those who were killed -- such as the 18-year-old boy in Salt Lake City who in the shopping mall killed five people. And there have been about a dozen of those incidents. All of them were radical Islamic terrorists.
But the press never mentions that -- most of the press -- because they are trying to keep Islam in a good light here in this country. And there are pros and cons on that.
Essential components of a Falwell television show are someone to blame and a toll free number to make a donation.
lol Irony
Your absolutely right. Any christian conservative who listens to Falwell definantly does not have thier head screwed in...
Falwell is irrelevant...
Anything he says is just garbage. Glenn Beck, why do you have this hatemonger on your program?
Even little Hate-Monger Glenn needs a helping hand sometimes. Hate mongering is hard work, you know. So, little Glenn brings in reinforcements now and then.
QTF. The radical right must stick together if they are to have an impact.
oops. QFT, I meant.
I'm out of it, Pete, I don't know what either means.
In a perfect world, Falwell would be irrelevant. I think we're writing him off too soon. Potential Republican presidential candidates seem to be tripping over each other sucking up to him and his flock.
Because Beck is a hatemonger and a fearmonger.
Wow!!! Hadn't seen a picture of Fallfar for a long time. Has he been guilty of a second deadly sin (Isn't bearing false witness one?) as in gluttony?
Oscar: you don't expect Repugnants to have to pay for their sins, now, do you? I mean, after all, God will forgive them for they know not what they do? 'Specially since *I* cannot forgive them, it is good that God has greater capacity to forgive than *I* can muster!
Oscar, he's still trailing ProudChristian by five.
Hey, where is ProudChristian lately? Did it turn into Politician818? I love both of them.
Isn't being a grouch one of the deadly sins? The Bible strictly forbids being a grouch. Obviously, if you are a grouch you cannot be following God's plan of salvation. You need help, grouch, you should seek a good professional. Try not to let anyone who has a deadly sin in their online nickname help you, because certainly if they care so little about nicknames they would care even less about your well being.
Make sure you go through ALL nicknames and tell each and every one of them that have 'deadly sins' listed to change their names to more appropriate names for this forum. It's certain that everyone's nickname is just an extension of the person, so stop being a grouch because God does not approve of that.
Who the hell are you to tell us what God approves of?
And, I'd check my own name if I were you. I doubt that your god approves approve of men who claim to be psychic.
" Who the hell are you to tell us what God approves of? "
Well, YOU certainly have NO problem telling others that their nicknames are against God's will. Perhaps that mirror you use should be facing the other way when you deny participation in putting blame on someone simply because of their nickname! Apparently, you know nothing of my God, the One who gives 'gifts' to people. I guess you got the gift of "whining". When you complain about religion, you may want to actually know a little about it, first.
There is no god. Not one. None.
BTW, doesn't God say to not worry? And, I'm pretty sure you are not a king, so you are committing a deadly sin by continually being a worrier. And by claiming to be a king. That is lying, I think that may be a deadly sin, too.
Moral of this story....GET OVER IT! You rule over no one and can claim judgement of no one. If you have a problem with nicknames take it up with YOUR god.
I have no problem with anyones name.
I was coming to Oscar's defense. You were the one to question his name. I just thought that it was a little hypocritical of you to be questioning someone else's choice of screen names, with the name you chose for yourself.
And I'm not doubting your statement, but could you give me chapter and verse on where god says not to worry?
And you're right, I'll leave the judgment to you and your vengeful god.
Matthew 11:28-30
I'm having trouble locating the words "don't worry" in the chapter and verse that you supplied. In case you forgot what it said:
28"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. 29Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Ah, but you seem to be one with problems with nicknames also. But we are getting a little far afield here. As much as I dislike the message(s) that Fallfar spreads, there does, in my biased opinion, seem to be a trend in most of the media to bend over backwards to appease Islam and slam Christianity. There are millions of good Muslims in the world, just as there are millions of good Christians, Jews, Buddists, Hindus, etc. Unfortunetly, we "stereotype" each by the actions of a few extremists. People like Fallfar need to look beyond names (Does it sound Muslim? He/she must be an extremist) and look at the individual.
BTW, doesn't God say to not worry? - autopsychic
You're thinking of Bobby McFerrrin.Who exactly are you referring to with the nickname business?
" Who exactly are you referring to with the nickname business? "
Looking back, it was you who started this deal. You complained about the proudchristian person being so far ahead relating to the deadly sins. I just followed the process and now king of the worriers and grouchy guy and you are complaining about 'why all the fuss over nicknames'. Well, if nicknames don't matter, then they shouldn't be refering to nicknames as if they do matter. It's pretty obvious most everyone picks a name they like, not because it describes them (although I'm sure some do). Me...I've worked on cars for 35 years and like to guess what's wrong with them before we actually look at them, as in- autopsychic. No harm...no foul! Good talking to ya.
I don't care about anybody's nickname, and I never complained about a nickname.And I got my name from my old softball teammates.I hope your mechanical diagnoses are more reality based.
Auto,
You must forgive. For many here, a name involving "auto" triggers a conditioned response identifying you as a HATER of the environment (one who enables the use of fossil fuels).
You must make allowance for that, once you understand it.
Not exactly. We don't like busy-bodies who know nothing of the history of interchange here and attack someone for no good reason.
Not attacking.
Forgiving.
Forgiveness of such arrogant, condescending nature; Thou art most high.
Who does Falwell's television makeup, an undertaker? Have you seen him lately? Yikes...!
It's his Brother Bubba Blubber act.
When I first came to this story, I wondered 'why do they have a picture of Ted Kennedy in an article about Jerry Falwell?'. Wow, what a surprise when it turned out to be Falwell. But, if you look at pictures of both, they look like twins.
Yeah sort of like Saudi Arabia and Iraq.Are Republicans this easily confused about everything?
Elucidate, please.
His point is obvious, no?
Undertaker?...I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't he supposedly at death's door awhile back?
We can only hope....the world will be a much nicer place when this guy finally takes a dirt nap.
it may be when you do the same as well.
Evilib, another zinger in the classic rubber/glue vein.
What ever happened to that old saying?" Your rubber I'm glue" ...
And, "Sticks and Stones".....
Seems america is raising a bunch of sissies.
A sissy is someone who talks big game but is really a wimp. You fit that perfectly with your insipid comments.
Really. Lets see, call me "White Trash" and Ill say the words,, "You are soooo G@Y".... Lets see who gets offended first by a few HARMLESS words.
Personally the past couple of times i have (accidentally when channel surfing) seen Falwell it kind of looks like Orwell's Animal Farm in action. Four legs good, two legs better and all.
According to a February 14 Reuters [link to www.reuters.com] color="#0052a3">article, "[W]hen the Bosnian Serbs overran [Srebrenica] in 1995, taking away and massacring some 8,000 Muslim men and boys, Sulejman and his mother were evacuated by the United Nations and later reunited with his father." On February 15, the AP [link to www.washingtonpost.com] color="#0052a3">reported that after their village, Talovici, was invaded in 1993, the young Sulejman, his mother, and three siblings escaped on foot to the United Nations-protected enclave of Srebrenica.
and the above matters why?????
Because the massacre of several thousand humans is significant if you put the bong down for a while.
Put your syringe down, then check out the father's crimes during his days of battle. I'm sure he murdered his share. Like father, like son. In the words of Hank Jr., it's a family tradition!
I'm sure he murdered his share. - autopsychic
I don't know what you know about this, but if you're "sure", then those deaths are significant as well.I have no problem with you mentioning it, although some backup wouldn't hurt.
"Like father, like son." isn't backup, it's an old saying.
To answer your earlier question about where Proud Christian went. He didn't go anywhere, HBL.
He transfigured himself into Autopsychic.
And he's still casting stones.
RepublicHater--ProudChristian--Autopsychic. It's a shape shifter!
Let me guess, you can't win this arguement so you claim I'm some nutjob so you look good in your freinds eyes. That makes sense.
Argument?
Not from me. I was just defending one of the regular conservative posters (Oscar) for whom I have a great deal of respect.
You're the one passing judgment on everyone. I just assumed you were Proud Christian because he also judges men who've been to war as in need of God's forgiveness. It seemed like that's where you were headed.
Actually, worrierking, autopsycho is right. you can't win the argument against his speculation and genetic evil positions.Like playing handball against the drapes, to resurrect an oldie.
I like my bong, leave it out of it.
Look, I feel there is noo reason to include the massacre. I DO UNDERSTAND it is important to know of these vents. But, not when it pertains to the slaughter of the people this kid killed. It simply is there, IMHO, to bring a "Awwwwwe" factor to the story.
Now, get out of the basement once in a while and see the light.
Do you honestly think the media sympathizes with murderers? Your links are broken, but from what you quoted, it just sounds like relating the past of someone in the news, which is pretty common.
Or would you rather they said he flew to the US on a magic carpet made of bubblegum and sunshine?
"sympathizes with murderers?"
No, but the do like the AWWWEEEE factor.
Media Matters was already proven wrong on this about 50 threads ago. The main Utah paper admitted they purposely didn't disclose the kid was a Muslim until they were called on the carpert for it.
Falwell was absolutely correct. It pains me to print that.
In other news, someone tell Falwell you have to climb a stairway to heaven, so he better buy a treadmill and start working out.
The fact that he was Muslim wasn't pertinent. Unless you can point to where Timothy McVeigh was called Christian Timothy McVeigh in every mention of his name, then you have no point as usual
Because some people are affected by the things and the atrocities that they see, and may leave them mentally ill. PTSD. Ever hear of it? It could have caused this boy problems, and then he ended up killing people because of it. It wasn't because he was a Muslim, it was because he was probably mentally unstable. This, does not in any way, shape, or form excuse what he did though, but it could be one of the reasons. Unfortunately, we won't know, because he is dead.
So, using Fawell's logic, I guess the other mass shootings [way too many to list] in the past several years on US soil are the result of Christian terrorists. Thank you for clarifying that Fawell. As usual, my cup runneth over.
I know which god Falwell prays to. That man worships Death. He's always wishing it on others.
Since no one is speaking about the article itself and are only concerned with his looks. I'll start one actually related to the story you've just read. Well, if any of you actually read the story.
Falwell and/or Savage may not be that far off the truth. The investigations that mmfa links to all happened within 3 days of the massacre. I don't know how anyone could say difinitavely that terrorism wasn't involved that quickly. After we've had some time to digest all the information on the case it may very well turn out to be a terrorist act. However, you won't hear any more of this case on the news or in the media since, it is true, the media is trying everything they can to prevent hatred of Islamic radicals.
Articles you won't see have already popped up that provide more insight to a massacre that police are indeed investigating as a potential 'jihadist act'. Such as the possibility of hearing "Allah Akbar" on a recording of the shooting. Along with the "hero" like funeral he received in bosnia and the blame the family is placing on America for allowing their son to buy a gun. While ignoring the fact that his father was a fighter in the bosnian war while living there. Perhaps you haven't heard that part, huh? How many people has the father killed? Do actions of the father often influence actions of the son?
http://www.juliagorin.com/wordpress/?p=695
"...it is true, the media is trying everything they can to prevent hatred of Islamic radicals."
So... you're saying the media are sympathetic to Islamic radicals who perpetrate death, destruction and mayhem? And why would the media be supportive of Islamic radicalism? Because they want Islamic radicals to take over America and do away with freedom of the press? I don't understand...
Yeah, I don't understand their support of them either. Nor, do I understand gays not protesting when an Iranian official came to America and said that Islam does not approve of homosexuality. They have NO problem continually degrading Christianity for it's perception of homosexuality, but seem to have no problem with Islam's. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the ultra-liberal will not support the destruction of radical Islam.
Perhaps we can explain the Easter bunny which is as real as your propagandistic misrepresentation of the lefts view on radical Islam. Just because we dont want a holy war with ALL Islam doesnt mean we arent in agreement radical terrorists shouldnt be dealt with. We just think it ought to be done effectively and not used as an EXCUSE to push agendas that dont address the problem and create all new problems
" Just because we dont want a holy war with ALL Islam doesnt mean we arent in agreement radical terrorists shouldnt be dealt with. "
Well, since you've taken it upon yourself to be the mouthpiece for the anti-war crowd. Tell us HOW would you deal with radical islamic terrorists? You seem to be 'all knowing' on how to deal with them, give us a small piece of your brilliance and tell us how to save the world. I'll go make the popcorn. Perhaps we can set up a national tour: "solon, saving the world!"
Your snide comments aside I along with many of the anti war crowd have been saying what we should do all along. One thing is for sure I would make a better spokesperson for a tour than someone as ignorant and brainwashed as you are.First of all Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. If fighting radical Islam was the goal then invading the most secular Islamic nation in the region was insanity. Lets start with what you DONT do. You DONT use terrorism as an excuse for imperialism like Iraq. That further inflames the moderate reasonable Islamic people who we could use on our side. What we need is the guy in Saudi Arabia who owns a store turning IN the guy who keeps buying glycerine for no discernable reason because he thinks terrorism against innocents is a blashpemy against the Koran. What we need to do is make clear that our war is NOT with Islam. We make it clear that terrorism itself is a horror and THAT is our only real concern. We make international agreements to allow forces to follow terrorists into their strongholds ignoring international barriers. For this we need international cooperation which will not be forth coming as long as we use terrorism as an excuse instead of REALLY fighting it. We build some schools and hospitals in impoverished Arab and Islamic regions, water projects in order for them to see our fight is not with them. Then when a radical attacks us anywhere there is resentment because the people have seen we care about their wellbeing. Terrorists need a population far beyond those that accept their violence like a fish needs the sea to swim in and we need to dry that sea up. People right now that would NEVER strap on a bomb see things like Iraq as a reason NOT to turn such people in to allow them to operate in their neighborhoods. We go after THEM, that is terrorists not those who look vaguely like them and live in the same area. We kill terrorists in ways that minimize or eliminate innocents being killed to make a stark contrast between what THEY do and what WE do. We repudiate torture and other programs tha blur that distinction. I have much more but the basic concept is clear. We side with humanity and make it clear that terrorists DONT. That is step one. WE make international law stronger by sending Bush to the Hague to stand trial for warcrimes. If the Nuremberg precedent were followed he would be hung. Then its clear to the world that we arent using a double standard when we demand others who commit attrocities must be brought to justice and we can get international cooperation doing just that.
" What we need is the guy in Saudi Arabia who owns a store turning IN the guy who keeps buying glycerine for no discernable reason "
You do that by...?
" We build some schools and hospitals in impoverished Arab and Islamic regions, water projects in order for them to see our fight is not with them. "
I think we already are doing that. And the terrorists keep destroying what we build.
" We kill terrorists in ways that minimize or eliminate innocents being killed to make a stark contrast between what THEY do and what WE do. "
Again, we are already doing that.
" WE make international law stronger by sending Bush to the Hague to stand trial for warcrimes. If the Nuremberg precedent were followed he would be hung. "
Oooops, there goes ALL your credibility. Get real, he has committed no warcrimes. If he gets hung by whatever precedent you are considering, then so would half of the worlds leaders. Are you prepared to do that?
All in all, you have a decent plan. Though much of it sounds like wishful thinking and presumptive action by others that don't support our way of life. You assume that the masses we need to become our allies want to participate in our way of life, or YOUR way of life. I think radical islam (and most moderates) don't want to live the lifestyle you consider normal. That is one of the reasons they decided to start their war on humanity.
1 We do that in the way my post outlined
2 No we arent we are doing some building in Iraq of the infrastructure I am talking about in Palestine, Lebanon, Indonesia. Impoverished parts of the Islamic world where it is clear we have no political agenda. We do this for the same reason you feed hungry children. Because it helps alleviate misery and because WE CAN.
3 No we arent a few month ago when we wanted to kill an al Queda agent we bombed a villiage and killed about 20 people NOT including the guy we were after 7 or 8 of the dead were children I am saying we STOP doing that. It blurs the distinction I am talking about.
4 Like I said if the Nuremberg precedent were followed he would be hung. We hung most of the Nazis NOT because of what they did to civilians but for starting a war of aggression. That is what Iraq is. So I disagree but I am fine with leaving that up to the Hague if they find him innocent I would be ok with that because our committement to international law would still be made clear.
5 I am not talking about making them live OUR way but having respect for them living their way. I am only talking about help with the violence against innocents and I think they would be willing to help with that. I know some Islamic people and some of them are among the most generous God loving people I have ever met. I think they would join in attacking war on innocent women and children. I especially think it is worth a try. It has the advantage of being the right thing to do. Motives are so important. Anything can fail, including more violence. IF it fails the violence option is always available. Anything can have unintended consequences and make things worse that is why you must START with good motives. That way even if it all goes sideways you KNOW you were trying to do the right thing. If you START with violence and use pragmatice rationales and it goes sideways you have the worst of all possible worlds bad motives and bad outcomes with no redeeming rationale. We should try it this way because its the right thing to do. An attempt to ratchet down the increasing spiral of violence is encumbent on us because WE are the most powerful. We will never be seen as weak because we are obviously the most powerful military force in the history of the world. We have shown often enough that we have the will to project violence. The other route deserves a try.
"They have NO problem continually degrading Christianity for it's perception of homosexuality, but seem to have no problem with Islam's."
Well... maybe it has something to do with the fact that the gays in AMERICA, to whom you refer, are demonized by Evangelical Christians in AMERICA who claim to have swung the last two Presidential elections in AMERICA. Show me any influential Islamic leaders in AMERICA who are using the political process to ban gay marriage, for example.
Execution is the penalty for homosexual conduct in at least some Muslim regimes.
"...why the ultra-liberal will not support the destruction of radical Islam."?
Your query posits a false assumption that liberals do not support the destruction of radical Islam and therefore cannot be answere... nor should such a bogus assumption even be taken seriously. But your leap of logic is astounding... because a newspaper did not report that a killer was a Muslim, liberals don't support the destruction of radical Islam? Sure... liberals want the terrorists to destroy America, I get it.
On another topic... when did you stop beating your wife?
My "leap of logic" comes from the many examples of liberal favor of pulling our troops out of Iraq and stop fighting islamic radicals where they are. They say they support fighting the radicals, but when we do they claim it's illegal. How are we supposed to fight against a mobil/adaptive enemy if a certain aspect of our political/social demographics demands we stop fighting and start appeasing.
Where was your "logic" when the Republicans and Neo-conservatives pulled our troops out of Afghanistan, where they were fighting islamic radicals, and sent them into Iraq to fight the secular thugs in charge there.
You can't have it both ways. In order for you to defend fighting Islamic Radicals in Iraq, you have to first admit that we diverted our attention from the real threat to a threat created by the Bush administration.
"While ignoring the fact that his father was a fighter in the bosnian war while living there. Perhaps you haven't heard that part, huh? How many people has the father killed? Do actions of the father often influence actions of the son?"
Autopsychic:
You are right in pointing out that there may have been a rush to judgement in absolving the shooter of jihadist motives. The old saw about "assume" fits here.
There are also other possibilities, among them PTSD.
Concerning the above quote: are you assuming that, because he took up arms in the face of genocide, the father was a terrorist? That would be outrageous. It's at least as likely that he was an ordinary guy trying to survive and defend his family and people.
Also concerning the first part of the above quote: Forgive the presumption of a language lover, but "While ignoring...living there." isn't a sentence. It's a sentence fragment.
What else are you going to build thought fragments out of?
Yeah, I ended that sentence with a preposition, but it's the weekend, cut me some slack.
No Falwell isnt right, which keeps alive his string of pretty much never being right, and neither are YOU. Perhaps, maybe possibly are not NEWS they are speculation. You WISH it were terrorism to fit your agenda. That also isnt news. The FBI looked into it they didnt believe it was terrorism. They are the ones trusted to make that call. Not Fallwell or someone speculating on a website.
The kid is 18 years old in 2007. Minus 1995, 18 -12 = 6 years old when they were evacuated by the UN. Prior to that, in 1993 " the young Sulejman, his mother, and three siblings escaped on foot to the United Nations-protected enclave of Srebrenica." He would have been four.
Also, he is a Muslim, one of the people the Serbs were supposedly massacring. Seems like you are inferring that the father was killing people. Maybe defending other Muslims?
I would wonder if a child who experienced war at that age has some level of PTSD that contributed to the killings.
That part of war is one of the ongoing tolls of the violence - long after the fighting has stopped.
" I would wonder if a child who experienced war at that age has some level of PTSD that contributed to the killings. "
Does that mean we should search for and lock up each child who came to America from that war? You kind of infer that the children exposed to that experience won't have the capability of diferentiating between right and wrong, that they are no longer able to survive on their own. Perhaps the government should round all of them up and put them in asylums in order to protect them from themselves. That doesn't seem like a very bright line of thought. PTSD? No, the kid simply vented the way he learned from family experiences and fatherly examples.
Please explain the "fatherly examples".
Are you trying to imply that the father, since he was a fighter against the destruction of his people, is some kind of criminal?
I don't remember reading anything about the fathers history other than the fact that he took up arms against those trying to commit genocide.
You miss the point as usual. No he is giving another possible motivation than your repeated baseless assertion about what MIGHT have caused the kid to go nutso
So, you're saying that the kid is not responsible for his actions because he had a "disease"? Albeit, a disease that is created to give excuses for bad behavior. Personally, I feel that PTSD was invented to avoid personal responsibility. And to give more drugs to our kids because no one can control them. Take responsibility for your actions and stop blaming things out of your control.
More strawmen from the right. Nobody's excusing the kid, only pointing out that being through a horrible war during an impressionable time is the most likely explanation of his psychological pathology.
As for PTSD: Have you been in war? If not, you should volunteer. People who can kill and face the constant prospect of death without being affected probably have lost their right to call themselves human.
I agree, Pragmatic. Anyone who lives through war and says it has no effect on their psyche is no longer human. And anyone who can advocate sending other people's children to this war is a coward, unless they're willing to send their own.
"And there have been about a dozen of those incidents. All of them were radical Islamic terrorists."
Dear God I'm so confused by the right. My sense of security is shot all to hell. I thought we didn't have to fight them over here. I thought Bush made us safer because we haven't been attacked since 9/11.
"However, you won't hear any more of this case on the news or in the media since, it is true, the media is trying everything they can to prevent hatred of Islamic radicals."
Or media is covering for the Bush administration's insistence that we are safer since we haven't been attacked again because we're in Iraq but no that isn't it either we have been attacked since 9/11 Fallwell and Autopsychic and every Republican says terrorists are under my bed thus Bush hasn't made me safer yet we must support the war that is how we support the troops and oh dear Rush Limbaugh just tell me what to think!
Normal people ignore Jerry Falwell in order to keep themselves in a normal, sane, decent, rational light.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I guess we didn't fight the Christian fundamentalists hard enough over there because we've got them here.