you're reading...
Activism, Atheism, current events, Religion

Extremism and Party Lines

I had originally intended for this blog entry to be a philosophical exploration of the differences and similarities between liberal, moderate, and extremist religious belief.  Hopefully, I’ll still be able to illustrate one of my points successfully, but in light of recent current events, feigning the role of uninvolved bystander just won’t work.

We all know what this is about, right?  We have a problem with the Catholic Church, and be “we,” I mean every literate human in the Western World.  Let’s take religion out of the equation for a minute.  We have an organized international business conglomerate that has been systematically letting its CEOs and regional managers get away with child molestation — for decades.  Rather than assist authorities in bringing these abusers to justice, the president of the entire company has been signing off on company policy documents authorizing the reassignment of pedophiles to new territories where they will be immune from prosecution.  He’s been defending the offenders — for the good of the company! He’s said it in as many words.

Is there a precedent for U.S. response to such a human rights violation?  It turns out, there is.  In 2005, The United States signed the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime. Granted, trafficking in human slaves is different from raping children, but the bar has still been set.  The U.S., at least in principle, is opposed to human rights violations against women and children, and is willing to go on international record as supporting and assisting in the capture and prosecution of those who engage in organized and systematic violations.

What Defines Extremism?

We humans have problems with words.  We often get caught in semantic arguments — as much to save face as to arrive at the truth.  Is it fair to say that the Catholic Church is an extremist organization?  On the face of it, many people are hesitant to say it is.  After all, there are millions of Catholics in the world who don’t buy into a lot of the extremist dogma espoused by the Roman Pontiff.   They don’t rape children.  They use condoms when having consensual sex with adults.  They voted for Obama.  They’re opposed (in principle) to excluding the entire gay population from basic rights.

I suggest that it’s wrong to conflate “Catholics” with “The Catholic Church.”  I’ll even go one further.  It’s wrong to conflate “All Catholic Churches in the World” with “The Powerful Churches Supported by the Vatican.”  Speaking of Catholicism as if it encompasses all aspects of the religion and culture it represents is vague to the point of being meaningless.  But it’s time that we start drawing distinctions and following the logic wherever it leads.  We cannot — for the sake of thousands, maybe tens of thousands of children — afford to keep pulling the wool over our own eyes.

Let’s go back to the scenario I described at the beginning.  There’s a multinational corporation actively engaged in organized child molestation.  Let’s call it… AT&T.  Suppose the news hit the air tomorrow that AT&T had been moving executives around to facilitate the continued raping of children all over the world.  What do you suppose would be the reaction of AT&T stockholders?  Do you imagine that the company’s future might be in serious jeopardy?  Would there be an international investigation?  Would the U.S. government actively prosecute American citizens who had been involved in the cover-up?

In fairness, there’d probably be some nefarious activity at the highest levels.  We’ve learned from Enron and similar company scandals that there are deals to be made.  Arthur Anderson was guilty of facilitating fraud on a grand scale, but the Supreme Court threw the conviction out in 2005.  But the broader point that I’d like to make here is that regardless of the government’s aid and abetment, Arthur Anderson and Enron are has-beens.  Nobody will hire Anderson, and nobody will invest in Enron.

The broad point remains.  Religion being cast aside, the international community would not stand for the crimes committed by the Holy See.  What’s more — and more to the point — we wouldn’t continue to see dogged, blind support for the pope and his entourage of sociopath pedophile bishops and priests.  Much like investors in Enron, the faithful would sell their stock and find a company that was producing profitable returns on investment.

Richard Dawkins Wants the Pope Arrested

This shouldn’t be big news by now.  Dawkins and Hitchens have hired hot-shot legal eagles in the UK to find the precedents and legal justification for arresting the Pope when he arrives on British soil.  And by rights, they’re correct for wanting him arrested.  Augusto Pinochet was arrested in Great Britain, and he was a former head of state.  It’s arguable that the Pope isn’t even that.  The Vatican isn’t recognized as an official state.  It’s gray area.

But curiously, most of the Catholics I have heard from on the issue are against Dawkins.  Why?

Judging from their own words, I have to say there are two reasons.  First, he’s an atheist.  Second, they’re still loyal to the Catholic Church.  Both of these justifications speak to me of extremism.  I’ll address each individually.

  • Party Loyalty — Party loyalty over human rights is extremism.  I can’t think of any other way to put it.  When Republicans vote en masse for the exclusion of gays from Constitutional protection, I see extremism.  When they automatically vote against any Democratic nominee for Supreme Court, I see extremism.  When they bluster and shout about “Death Panels” during attempts at reforming an obviously broken health system… extremism.
  • Atheism — How is it any less extreme when Richard Dawkins is shouted down for being correct while being a member of the “wrong party”?  Yes, he’s an atheist.  But he’s right.  The pope deserves to be arrested, and if we removed religion from the picture, there wouldn’t be any question on the matter.  Whenever we are standing against people who we agree with in principle, but disagree with on party lines, we are being extremist.

Religion’s Hold on The Group Conscience

I want to be very careful here, lest my detractors accuse me of speaking without scientific backing.  Without being so bold as to assert cause and effect, I’d like to point out that there are hundreds — thousands — of ways to be a Christian.  The Catholic Church is far from a monopoly when it comes to belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, in the same way that there are thousands of companies in the world in the electricity and natural gas industry.  When Enron turned out to be a lemon, virtually all of its public shareholders jumped ship.  Many, perhaps most of them, went to competitor companies with whatever money they had left.  And that’s the logical response.

But that’s not happening, at least not on any grand scale, with the Catholic Church.  Instead, commentators are blasting us skeptics, humanists, and atheists for suggesting that anything be done about the Church’s crimes against humanity.  Some moderates (forgive me for being harsh) are quietly skulking away so as not to appear culpable, but they’re not really doing very much if anything to call for an investigation.  They’re not going in front of their former congregations and encouraging them to find other more humane ways to worship Jesus.  They’re just quietly stepping out the door and hoping nobody noticed they were ever there.  It’s too risky to stand up against the church, and anyway, someone else will do it.  It’s someone else’s problem.

By comparison, Enron investors were screaming for federal intervention, for class action lawsuits, for jail sentences.  Sure, some of them just quietly took their losses, but for the most part, everybody was really mad about it and publicly demanded justice.  It was on the news every night for months, and I don’t mean that it was tucked away on page five of the paper.  It was front page, lead story news, and we couldn’t get enough of it.

Can you imagine what would happen if millions — literally millions — of Catholics all over the world stood up together?  “We will not be a part of this kind of crime against humanity.  This church does not represent good human values anymore.  It’s corrupt and evil, and is using its vast financial resources and public influence to grant itself immunity from even the worst of human rights violations — crimes against children.  We demand justice, and we will no longer give our money to the Church until justice is served.”

Then again, Enron investors were not under the belief that they could only invest in Enron, and that if they invested in any other company, they’d lose their entire fortune.  I wonder if that has anything to do with the dogged support for an obvious international criminal.  I wonder if there’s any effect whatsoever when millions of barely literate people all over the world continue to drop their pennies into the church coffers for fear of upsetting the creator of the universe.  Is it possible that people are reacting differently to a religious criminal crisis than they would a corporate criminal crisis?

I wonder what the streets will look like when the Pope visits Great Britain.  Do you suppose there will be mobs of angry protesters throwing eggs, shouting down His Holiness, and screaming for the police to step in and arrest him?  Or do you think there will be mobs of faithful, crying and thanking him for granting the privilege of his Holy Aura to the people of England?  Oh, I suppose there will be protesters.  But on balance, do you think they’ll outnumber the faithful?

Don’t count on it.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I think it’s fair to call the Catholic Church a bunch of extremists.  From the top down, the organization doesn’t function according to human conscience and rationale the way other international conglomerates do.  When there’s a scandal, the majority of the faithful side with the church, despite all the evidence.  We freethinkers, atheists, and skeptics are up in arms about this.  We think that powerful officials who facilitate systematic, worldwide raping of children ought to be punished.  We have pity on the children, and though we feel sorry for the millions of Catholics who have invested their money, time, and energy in the Church, we believe justice ought to be done.  We cannot tolerate these crimes against children.

And instead of being praised for standing up for children, we get blasted for being reactionaries.  We are accused of being “angry at God.”  We’re accused of trying to further our own agenda.

Well you know what?  Fuck you.  Yeah.  I said it.  Fuck you.  All of you who are saying those things about me and mine.  I care enough about my fellow humans to demand justice for those who are even now abusing the most defenseless of them.  And you can go fuck yourself for vilifying me while you keep sending your checks to the former Hitler Youth who says condoms cause AIDS and who supports pedophiles.

Yes.  I’m angry.  And damn well I should be.  And you should be too.  Now get off your pious asses and do something productive for humanity.  Jesus will respect you for it, and he won’t be mad if you skip church for a while.

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Advertisements

Discussion

19 thoughts on “Extremism and Party Lines

  1. /eyes misting over with tears…

    You had me at “Fuck you” Hamby… you had me at “Fuck you”.

    But seriously. This entire thing is just appalling. How do Catholics continue to go to church and identify themselves as Catholic after nonsense like this? Isn’t it just so far beyond mere embrassment?

    I just don’t get that they have the balls to claim to be a moral authority when all this is going down.

    Posted by Athol Kay: Married Man Sex Life | April 14, 2010, 6:42 pm
  2. Setting the usual nit picks aside, I would say I agree, that the Church or any other religious insitutions should be held to the same standard as any other institution.

    I think you’re right, we do need to get the church to change and change, as usual, comes from within.

    We need to encourage catholics to step up and demand change, and at the same time, not shoot down the catholics that do as I’ve seen the last scandal.

    It may be easy for them to dismiss the call for change from an outgroup, but it’s sure as hell harder to ignore it when it comes from the ingroup.

    So what do we atheists do?

    Call to attention the ones that do speak out against it like this Priest:

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/13/massachusetts.priest.pope/index.html

    It would be far harder for them to simply dismiss the priest as an outgroup when he’s, well, part of the ingroup.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 14, 2010, 9:49 pm
  3. The Holy See – laughable title.

    “When there’s a scandal, the majority of the faithful side with the church, despite all the evidence”….They sided with god against the evidence – it must be neuroses… I can’t understand it as anything but clinical.

    But, my take on how to clean this up, FAST:

    Not protecting your child is a crime…ARREST THE PARENTS… thats how they take down drug rings and smuggling rings… start by arresting the little guy at the bottom.

    I know that is harsh, but yeah. Arrest the parents who repeated send their children into danger. I will kill with my own hands to protect children …

    The civil suits against the Church are a joke. The parents who sue HAVE DIRTY HANDS – they should not be allowed to collect money for allowing their kids to be tortured!

    Posted by PaigeB | April 14, 2010, 11:05 pm
  4. PaigeB, are you saying arrest the parents of the kids?

    This of course actually assumes that they knew their kids were getting abused.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 14, 2010, 11:49 pm
  5. Hit post too soon.

    But I would like to add that I don’t think the parents knew their kids were getting abused.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 14, 2010, 11:50 pm
  6. Cpt – I get your idea that the parents of past victims might not have known. However, now there is little or no excuse for the neglect in dropping Little Bobby off at at prep school, choir, day camp…WHATEVER event, and leaving them unattended by a protector.

    True, this might be radical, but if you knew your babysitter was accused of child abuse would you drop your kids off there? Once a priest or organization has been accused – especially of wide spread, long term abuse and cover up, parents ARE RESPONSIBLE for any continued abuse that they subject their children too.

    Posted by PaigeB | April 15, 2010, 6:24 pm
  7. Good article, Hamby. What really gets me is that the Church doesn’t really care what the west thinks. The growth will come from Africa and Asia in the foreseeable future – so the U.S. (always a bunch of troublemakers), Europeans and Latin Americans are just a pain in the ass.

    The early church was brilliant at marketing, and Constantine provided a brilliant ad campaign. The church today is hoping that its marketing skills will see it through again, but their attention is only reluctantly focused on this crisis.

    Meanwhile, what about the children?

    Posted by Susan Walsh | April 17, 2010, 8:41 pm
  8. I am forced to laugh with bitter cynicism as Mr. Dawkins & Mr. Hitchens attempt to have the leader of the racket arrested and I cheerlead from the sidelines.

    This should be familiar territory for Christopher – he led an enormous campaign to see Mr. Kissinger put to bed in the iron bar motel, but nothing ever came of it. Let’s be honest: nothing will come us this (much less intense) campaign either.

    Joseph Ratzinger has too much clout & has made too many political allies. I doubt we could jail him if he was filmed shoving a wheelchair bound preteen into midday traffic.

    ‘Justice’. What a fucking joke of a term.

    Maybe the world will get lucky and some deranged gunman can deliver ‘justice’ for us by blowing-off one of his holiness’s kneecaps. It’s the best I can hope for, I’m sure.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 18, 2010, 1:25 am
  9. I think you’re right, we do need to get the church to change and change, as usual, comes from within.

    We need to encourage catholics to step up and demand change, and at the same time, not shoot down the catholics that do as I’ve seen the last scandal.

    Yeah – fascists always bow to pressure from within their own ranks. Like the Nixon administration, right? Or the Reagan administration? How about the Soviet Union? Maoist China? The Iraqi Ba’athist theocracy? The old Catholic Church, when the Inquisition was still called the Inquisition? Castro’s Cuban administration? Pinochet’s dictatorship? King Henry VIII’s court?

    Turncoats are painted as traitors and purged, not yielded to; you can’t name a single example where ‘change came from within’ and transformed a despotic regime into something more benign. In every instance they are either toppled by fierce & brutal military intervention or they simply burn themselves out with their increasing lust for suicide.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 18, 2010, 1:42 am
  10. Kevin are you serious?

    I mean Martin Luther King changed the church’s views on race.

    Ken Miller is changing Christian’s views on evolution.

    Chris Hedges is changing Christian’s views on fundamentalism.

    And those are examples off the top of my head.

    Why do you think there are so many denominations of Christianity? Somebody didn’t like what the church was doing, so they changed it and came up with their own denomination.

    Plus the Catholic church is far different from say the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia.

    If I was born in the Soviet Union, then I have no choice but be a part of it or be executed. There’s no real incentive for the Soviet Union to actually try to make the citizens happy. [of course they didn’t make the members of their own government happy and they had tanks. And if you piss them off enough, they send said tanks to your front door.]

    However, people can stop being members of the church.

    Since you brought up Nixon

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19740731&id=QtsPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TI0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3711,3965915

    Don’t you know anything about group dynamics?

    Here’s an hour long video

    http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20148

    and the best part is, no Atran.

    Here’s another topic in reference to your question as to why I make the arguments I make:

    http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20229

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 18, 2010, 3:18 pm
  11. I like the corporation comparison. I compared them to a petty dictator ruining his/her country and the flood of missionaries/aid workers that would be coming to give succor to the residents.

    http://getinhangon.wordpress.com/2010/04/09/little-boys-with-broken-toys/

    Posted by Meg L. | April 19, 2010, 6:10 pm
  12. Kevin are you serious?

    I mean Martin Luther King changed the church’s views on race.

    Ken Miller is changing Christian’s views on evolution.

    Chris Hedges is changing Christian’s views on fundamentalism.

    And those are examples off the top of my head.

    MLK is well known only by virtue of the Christian majority in America having airbrushed secular proponents of desegregation from history. As a result of this nonsense, people like Jesse Jackson are now said to represent the ‘black community’ and can freely pick the pockets of the impoverished.

    Ken Miller is not ‘changing the view’ of fundamentalist lunatics in America. It’s a pity you didn’t have the chance to hear what Ms. Coulter had to say about the Dover trial & Mr. Miller in particular.

    Likewise, the release of Mr. hedge’s book hasn’t exactly caused the Tea Party movement to evaporate, has it?

    Since you brought up Nixon

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1291&dat=19740731&id=QtsPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TI0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3711,3965915

    Don’t you know anything about group dynamics?

    And did the American Republican party turn on Nixon? No, they didn’t. They sheltered him & pardoned him, and Kissinger went on to become an extremely successful & wealthy business tycoon. The only reason we know about their collective crimes at all is due to the stringent attacks from their political & moral enemies.

    Don’t you know anything at all about history? Was The Nazi empire defeated by delivering chocolates to Hitler’s doorstep and asking him if he’d please stop killing Jews? Were the turncoats in the party able to convince him that the war was lost even in the final days of the war, or were they branded as traitors and jailed?

    Plus the Catholic church is far different from say the Soviet Union or Saudi Arabia.

    If I was born in the Soviet Union, then I have no choice but be a part of it or be executed. There’s no real incentive for the Soviet Union to actually try to make the citizens happy. [of course they didn’t make the members of their own government happy and they had tanks. And if you piss them off enough, they send said tanks to your front door.]

    The Catholic church was quite happy to demand your capitulation at the tip of a sword while they had a standing army, before the reformation. It was a long time ago, but mass murder doesn’t have an ‘expiry date’; the papacy remains bespattered with the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

    More recently, we had men of cloth in Rwanda preaching Hutu Power rhetoric from their pulpits, cheering on the slaughter of the Tutsis. How’s that for such a meek and mild organization? Or does that not count because, hey, they’re just Africans?

    The Pope won’t listen to reason, and neither will the Cardinals. How much do you want to bet that the priests speaking out against him will be reprimanded rather than heeded? I mean, if you’re correct, that shouldn’t be the case, right? The church should cave-in to the internal pressure.

    Well, I bet it won’t. I bet you’re terribly, miserably mistaken, and I bet that you won’t put your money where your mouth is.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 19, 2010, 8:15 pm
  13. Here’s another topic in reference to your question as to why I make the arguments I make:

    http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20229

    You make the arguments you make because you’re a sorry little apologist for mass murderers & sadists. It’s fine by you whatever the church does – afterall, it’s just ‘human nature’ at work anyway, right?

    Of course, like any dishonest little toad, you also throw up your hands and cautiously say that you ‘don’t approve of’ this or that travesty, but that’s not really how you feel. You don’t give a shit.

    If you did, you speak & write with the sort of anger that myself or Mr. Hitchens does.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 19, 2010, 8:19 pm
  14. Kevin I am going to say this slowly so you can understand.

    I do not advocate doing nothing in the face of irrationality, nonsense and bigotry.

    I do realize that sometimes you need military force. I support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    You seem to be missing the point in regards to my stance on military intervention and speaking out.

    You’re wrong that I “don’t give a shit” about the actions of Bin Laden or the pope or the crusaders.

    I am being a realist. I’m focusing on things that I CAN change. I CAN help change the opinions of Canadians/Americans who read my posts.

    Bin Laden doesn’t read my posts. Al Qaeda operatives don’t consult me for their operations. As much as Hamby would like, his blog isn’t a hit Beirut. Mossad isn’t using my posts for inspiration.

    You see Kevin, I lost Bin Laden’s phone number [I’ll get it from Atran later] so I can’t get to Al Qaeda or the PFLP or SSNP or FARC to incite change within those groups.

    But I can damn well incite change in what I can. I can damn well advocate that American and Canadian troops treat civilians humanly. I can rag on Bush for ordering the torture of innocent people just because they are Arab.

    What if Americans ensured the Iraqi civilian causities were kept to a minimum? What if they stopped torturing people that they aren’t even sure they are terrorists? What if they stopped denying people their right to a fair trial?

    In doing this I can damn well make it harder for the terrorists to recruit. Do you realize that if the IDF didn’t leave a trial of bodies when they pulled out of Gaza, maybe less people would be following them with bombs?

    Maybe if Americans were more inclined to give fair trial and less inclined to torture, a lot less Iraqis would be pissed?

    So let me say this nice and clear.

    I advocate to change what I think I can change. I don’t write well, so I want to make sure my posts hit were it counts.

    In doing so I feel I am actually making a difference rather than rant and plead to some person who won’t even read my posts.

    Though one little Canadian girl won’t make much a difference alone, she can still inspire others get others with her.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 20, 2010, 4:21 am
  15. As much as Hamby would like, his blog isn’t a hit Beirut.

    No… I’m ok with that. Really. Christianity is a big enough behemoth for me to work on. I’m only one man, after all. And thankfully, American Christians aren’t in the habit of lopping of the heads of those who disagree with them.

    Not yet, anyway. Give Pat Robertson time.

    Posted by hambydammit | April 20, 2010, 1:11 pm
  16. Actually Lebanon is about 40-50% Christian.

    Not yet, anyway. Give Pat Robertson time.

    What is he like 70 or 80?

    He’s had quite a while.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 20, 2010, 4:00 pm
  17. In doing this I can damn well make it harder for the terrorists to recruit. Do you realize that if the IDF didn’t leave a trial of bodies when they pulled out of Gaza, maybe less people would be following them with bombs?

    It’s more nuanced than this. For example, when Beirut was last shattered by the IDF, it was the result of calculated manipulation on the part of Hezbollah; they attacked IDF patrols in the full knowledge that doing so would provoke an absurdly violent reaction. Now, that doesn’t pardon the Israeli orthodoxy’s ‘collective punishment’ doctrine, but it certainly strongly contests the idea that the IDF ’causes’ the fundamentalism.

    It’s a cyclical relationship.

    What is he like 70 or 80?

    He’s had quite a while.

    Read up on Operation Blessing. Tutsis most certainly were getting their heads cut off (among other things) during the genocide in Rwanda, and Mr. Robertson gleefully threw his hat into the ring – telling people to donate to him so that he could airlift refugees out of their country. And what does he spend the donation money he received on? Air transport for his diamond mining machinery, which went to work on the mine he owned in partnership with the notorious dictator of Zaire, Mobutu.

    He was not arrested for fraud because he had his state politician in his pocket at the time he was investigated (it only cost him $35,000.00 to buy off Mr. Earley).

    So, it depends on you perspective, really: how much better is murder via proxy than outright murder? Stalin never himself shoved a political prisoner into a Gulag, afterall.

    Posted by Kevin R Brown | April 20, 2010, 9:06 pm
  18. It’s more nuanced than this. For example, when Beirut was last shattered by the IDF, it was the result of calculated manipulation on the part of Hezbollah; they attacked IDF patrols in the full knowledge that doing so would provoke an absurdly violent reaction. Now, that doesn’t pardon the Israeli orthodoxy’s ‘collective punishment’ doctrine, but it certainly strongly contests the idea that the IDF ’causes’ the fundamentalism.

    It’s a cyclical relationship.

    First I would like to point out the Hiz’bollah was formed during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon which was cause by the IDF attempting to flush out PLO fighters in refugee camps.

    The point was that while Israel has the right to defend itself, it doesn’t mean that we have to automatically accept the way they do it.

    The second point was that in acting in such an aggressive manner they aren’t helping improve their image.

    Do you realize what Abu Garib did to the American image in Iraq? It pissed off a lot of people that would not have otherwise opposed the American occupation. In fact, it turned people that supported the invasion into people that will attack American convoys.

    Of course this doesn’t excuse the actions of Hamas or Hiz’bollah, or Iraqi insurgents, but America and Israel can make it harder for them to gain support by what they do in response to them.

    If I feel that you did me an injustice, then burn down your block, then there’s going to be people pretty pissed at me that may not have otherwise been.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 21, 2010, 1:19 am
  19. Oh and the Pat Robertson comment was in reference to American Christians not lopping off heads of people who disagree with Christianity, not to say the Robertson is a moral or ethical person.

    Posted by Cpt_pineapple | April 21, 2010, 1:21 am

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

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: