Jump to content

Time to rescind tax free status from religious institutions


PenelopeWitherspoon

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Nivek said:


So we should just appease them so they don’t fuck the country?

They need to be taxed like other entities. I don’t want them to go away, so your projections are irrelevant, I want them to pay. I think this has been very clearly stated. So stop with the bullshit. It doesn’t work on me.

Religious persecution, yeah right. Snowflake. Paying taxes is persecution. I swear Jesus would fucking HATE Christians in their modern iterations, but that is another discussion.

Religious don’t act like corporations because they don’t have to. Your big XOM might employ 75k employees. Joel Osteen fucking laughs at those numbers with 10 million weekly watching his bullshit. They already have the fucking votes.

Outside of Trump how many atheist/agnostic Presidents have we had? Why are we so underrepresented? 23% of the gen pop and one congressperson according to pewresearch (dad joke in there somewhere). But again this is yet another topic.

I can’t even begin to keep track of the argument you’re making or who you’re having it with, but the simple answer is: churches have a tremendous amount of latent political power that they cannot and do not deploy because they are treated as tax-exempt non profits. If you begin to tax them, the most ruthless and wealthiest of them will still exist, will still take in plenty of money— and all that latent political power will be deployed actively and that will be a bad thing. I promise you that Osteen would love his own Lakewood Super PAC, he’s not holding back because he “doesn’t have to have one.”  And I can also promise that even with only 75K employees, more Senators and Secretaries across party lines take calls from the XOM CEO before TV pastors, even with all those eyeballs on the screen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Proselytizing Atheists!!!  Oh, boy!!
 

And you thought Mormons on your doorstep are annoying!!

Hell, I’ve read the Bible more than most Christians I know. I’m not afraid of reading it unlike the mystics who are afraid to read anything that might challenge their faith.

Edit: Also, if you read enough of the Bible, it should challenge your faith as much as reading any book about science. That shit is crazy. 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hell, I’ve read the Bible more than most Christians I know. I’m not afraid of reading it unlike the mystics who are afraid to read anything that might challenge their faith.

Edit: Also, if you read enough of the Bible, it should challenge your faith as much as reading any book about science. That shit is crazy. 

Still selling!  Personal testimony included for emphasis.  
 

You going to request an appointment next?

Also, why “hell?”  Thought that didn’t exist!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my limited experience, some people are severely overestimating religious organizations' reach and moolah. The organizations I am aware of, the salaried employees (usually less than 3) are paid at a rate of about $30-40/hour, which is barely manageable in the bay area. And these people usually have an MA and likely a PhD equivalent. They are primarily providing services to the congregation itself and managing outreach activities. Dozens of volunteers do the work, whether it is free clinic, hot meals, winter clothes, legal advice, temporary shelter, etc. Most of the fundraising is for these activities and 100% of it reaches the intended audience. The congregation takes the salaries, etc. as something they owe and covers it through the (voluntary) monthly donations. Needless to say, there are no profits, but real curtailing/shutting down of services due to shortfalls in fundraising. 

I bet all the real estate tax of all the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/gurudwaras in the bay area doesn't compare to one Stanford University Tax Compliance at Stanford. All this handwringing regarding tax exemption of religious structures is absurd.

As far as propaganda is concerned (the main reason behind this discussion), the amount of messaging I get from non-religious sources is >100x that of religious sources on a daily basis, ranging from consumerism and hedonism to philosophical and cultural appropriation. 

Those who say religion is evil, I agree that "religious" people have committed atrocities, but the biggest atrocity going on right now is being committed by Chinese atheists against Uighur Muslims. But because it is not religious people doing it, it is business as usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I’d go a step further and ban religious institutions and public displays of it. God would hear you from the privacy of your home if he was real.

Already in the Bible. Matthew 6:5-8

Concerning Prayer

5 “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

7 “When you are praying, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Earl Haffler said:

Also, we need to do away with tax deductions for charitable giving and home mortgage interest.

We are pretty close. The standard deduction is ~$25k. Mortgage interest is limited to borrowing of $750k (which very few people can afford). Today’s mortgage rates are ~3%. So let’s take the case if someone that borrows $300k to buy a $400k house. They pay interest of $9k (declining each year). Maybe a similar amount in property taxes. That leaves ~$7k in other deductions (charitable donations) before there is a tax advantage to opting to itemize. And then the only tax advantage is on deductions over that $7k. Everything to get there is just a push. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than nixing the tax exemptions, all non-profits should not be able to discriminate based on age, sex, gender-identity, race, national origin, disability and familial status unless the reasoning for doing so would pass strict scrutiny. Additionally, to be a tax-exempt non-profit you must not pay any employee more than 30x the pay of your lowest paid employee (~$452k vs. the potential low at the current federal minimum wage).

In exchange, they can comment on politics all they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I want a country with freedom from religion. Is that possible? 

Sure.  All you need is a government with enough force and authority to stomp it out.  Those are pretty easy to come by.

Problem is, once they get to stompin', they never stop with religion.  In fact, they rarely stomp out religion for the reasons you would have.  Rather, they stomp it out because religion generally constitutes a belief system that encompasses obedience to an authority OTHER than the authoritarian government, and THAT'S what makes it a problem.

I get the general feeling of "fuck religion, we should get rid of it."  I don't agree, but I get it -- and there's certainly plenty of good basis on the other side.  But the endpoint is  always problematic.  Religion is a matter of personal belief and conscience, and if you're going to stamp out THAT kind of personal belief and conscience, then it is always packaged with "and while we're at it, let's stomp out personal belief and conscience that would support any opposition to the regime."

And of course, the other alternative is equally bad -- instead of stomping out religion, the gov't decides to coopt it and use it as a basis for its power.  That way, not only is the Supreme Leader and General of the People's Military Forces and Also Head Chef at a Michelin Starred Restaurant telling the people what to do, GOD is telling them what to do (God just happens to use the same press release service as said Supreme Leader, pure coincidence, I swear).  So, defying the Supreme Leader is also defying GOD, and hey, we should stone to death those people.

Religion will exist.  It won't go away.  We can put on our berets and sit at the coffeehouse and talk about some ideal world where it does, but we're just sniffing our own farts at that point.  Once you start from a point of acknowledging the fact that religion won't disappear, then you have to choose a way to deal with it, as a society and a government.  Of the menu of options out there, I'm comfortable saying that our approach -- which at least embodies an ATTEMPT to avoid entanglement between church and state, albeit one that gets fucked up because people suck -- is better than the alternatives.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is just for too long, and still to this day in many counties, the majority of people believe some bad things because of religion and since people make laws, they make bad laws that subjugate others to inequality because of their beliefs. 
 

And since the origin stories aren’t exactly capable of being amended, we just have to hope that people stop believing in religion or stop imposing their beliefs upon others through legislation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

It is just for too long, and still to this day in many counties, the majority of people believe some bad things because of religion and since people make laws, they make bad laws that subjugate others to inequality because of their beliefs. 
 

And since the origin stories aren’t exactly capable of being amended, we just have to hope that people stop believing in religion or stop imposing their beliefs upon others through legislation 

I'm gonna blow your mind: religion is an EXCUSE for people to impose their "beliefs" on others/subject others to unequal treatment.  If it wasn't an available excuse.....another one would be found (see., e.g., anti-immigrant sentiment in the US, which is actually CONTRARY to the plain tenets of the dominant faith).  And yes, the "blow your mind" comment is hyperbole-joke -- I know that everyone around here knows this, I'm just bringing it home.

We're really, really good at shitting on other people.  Religion just gives us the excuse to say "it's not me shitting on you, I'm just acting as an instrument of God's will!"  But with or without that excuse....the downtrodden will always end up covered in shit, because that's what our species does.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I want a country with freedom from religion. Is that possible? 

Sure, are you prepared to die in a war over that want?   

Look I'm a fan of God and I love Jesus Christ's style but yea organized religion in my opinion is largely a pretty meh thing.  That said I realize that just like a lot of my opinions they are my opinions and are counter to a great many of my peers.  I think the system we have now has its flaws and loopholes but Brisket has been doing the Lord's work in this thread explaining over and over again just because I may not be a big fan of some of that stuff I shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

You’re arguing people kill people, not guns. I agree with you, but we can’t outlaw people 

Several genocidal authoritarians disagree with you.

And because religion is, at the end of the day, just a belief/value system, if you want to start outlawing beliefs and value systems that are incompatible with the goals of The State.....I mean, we've seen how that usually goes.  

And being that in the US, you aren't going to see around 200 million Americans (yes, that's the number) renounce Christianity upon your decree, you will not only drive the belief system underground, you'll turn it into a violent revolutionary galvanizing force.  And it's a revolution they would win, because of numbers and their role in society and most meaningful leadership positions.

Again, any discussion along these lines is just idealistic fart sniffing.  It's a pointless exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

We're really, really good at shitting on other people.  Religion just gives us the excuse to say "it's not me shitting on you, I'm just acting as an instrument of God's will!"

Exactly.

Organized religion is about the wealthy and powerful controlling the poor and weak and convincing the latter to do the unpleasant things that need to be done to "the others" to bring in more wealth and power for the wealthy and powerful.

See also: patriotism.

And it's not an accident that the same people fall for both and the same people profit from both.

Edited by TexArcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And hell yes religious institutions should be taxed.  They are businesses, and many are extremely profitable businesses.  Sure, they do charitable things in their communities, but so do every corporation and most small business owners. 

There isn't one good reason for religious businesses to avoid being taxed at the same rate as every other business.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Several genocidal authoritarians disagree with you.

And because religion is, at the end of the day, just a belief/value system, if you want to start outlawing beliefs and value systems that are incompatible with the goals of The State.....I mean, we've seen how that usually goes.  

And being that in the US, you aren't going to see around 200 million Americans (yes, that's the number) renounce Christianity upon your decree, you will not only drive the belief system underground, you'll turn it into a violent revolutionary galvanizing force.  And it's a revolution they would win, because of numbers and their role in society and most meaningful leadership positions.

Again, any discussion along these lines is just idealistic fart sniffing.  It's a pointless exercise.

I agree with you for the most part. One distinction being of the value system treats a group of people as inferior, then yes we should oppose that belief system. I just wish people were better I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very idea that this thread has existed for so long should give any rational thinker pause at the idea that the Univeristy of Texas is a premier source of education for anyone in America. There is a hugely disturbing lack of understanding of history, religion, and basic logic being pushed here by folks who style themselves as liberal. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sure.  All you need is a government with enough force and authority to stomp it out.  Those are pretty easy to come by.

Problem is, once they get to stompin', they never stop with religion.  In fact, they rarely stomp out religion for the reasons you would have.  Rather, they stomp it out because religion generally constitutes a belief system that encompasses obedience to an authority OTHER than the authoritarian government, and THAT'S what makes it a problem.

Yep. This is precisely why Christians were persecuted by the Romans, for instance. They were suspected of disloyalty because they wouldn't sacrifice to the Emperor and declared that Jesus - not Caesar - was Lord (a guy that was crucified as a suspected seditionist!). The Romans didn't really care about whatever gods any culture had in general - they were masters at co-opting them as part of their propaganda and were content to let people hold onto their beliefs because it made them more docile - but a religion that played by completely different rules was subversive and needed to be stamped out. 

 

Quote

And of course, the other alternative is equally bad -- instead of stomping out religion, the gov't decides to coopt it and use it as a basis for its power.  That way, not only is the Supreme Leader and General of the People's Military Forces and Also Head Chef at a Michelin Starred Restaurant telling the people what to do, GOD is telling them what to do (God just happens to use the same press release service as said Supreme Leader, pure coincidence, I swear).  So, defying the Supreme Leader is also defying GOD, and hey, we should stone to death those people.

See the Empire post-Constantine, when he decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And then the entire Middle Ages etc. Not a good alternative for the militant atheists on this thread if it comes to that - and not good for anyone who is serious about Christianity either, for that matter. It's probably the worst of all worlds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

I’d go a step further and ban religious institutions and public displays of it. God would hear you from the privacy of your home if he was real.

Good point.  You can enjoy Longhorn sports in the privacy of your home. No need to watch it with others.  Do you have any season tickets you want to unload?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

One distinction being of the value system treats a group of people as inferior, then yes we should oppose that belief system. I just wish people were better I guess. 

Preach.  Seriously.

I'm a person of faith, and I damned well oppose a belief system (fundagelical "Christianity") that gleefully inflicts cruelty on others.  And I damned well wish people were better.  A lifetime of experience, and reading a coupla books over the years, tells me I'm SOL.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The very idea that this thread has existed for so long should give any rational thinker pause at the idea that the Univeristy of Texas is a premier source of education for anyone in America.

Username most definitely checks out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Several genocidal authoritarians disagree with you.

And because religion is, at the end of the day, just a belief/value system, if you want to start outlawing beliefs and value systems that are incompatible with the goals of The State.....I mean, we've seen how that usually goes.  

And being that in the US, you aren't going to see around 200 million Americans (yes, that's the number) renounce Christianity upon your decree, you will not only drive the belief system underground, you'll turn it into a violent revolutionary galvanizing force.  And it's a revolution they would win, because of numbers and their role in society and most meaningful leadership positions.

Again, any discussion along these lines is just idealistic fart sniffing.  It's a pointless exercise.

Yikes, I don't wanna see Iraland play out here against religious people vs non religious people. Some of my favorite people aren't religious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is always such a beating.

Guys, religion ain't going away. Religious people aren't going to suddenly stop being religious and even if they did, they'd be just as irrational and stupid as they are now. Because they're people and people are irrational and stupid about all kinds of shit. The people who thinks there's really a significant number of exceptions to that are some of the most irrational and stupid people on earth.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bolverk said:

Since the decision that precipitated the topic is the thread was to allow a Church to deny adoption rights from gay couples, can we also discuss why the fuck we allow a religious organization to determine to whom they can sell/give a human baby? Why grant them that power of effectively owning and then bestowing a child in the first place?

Having been adopted myself through a religious adoption agency, I know that my parents essentially had to purchase me from them for something like $10,000. As a kid I never really thought much about that. But I remember telling with my host mother, when living in France as an exchange student, about the process and she was horrified by the notion itself.

In a weird way, you could say it is bit human trafficky.

Just some background on adoption.  The adoption itself is basically a legal process.  If adoptive parents could locate a birth mother willing to terminate parental rights (and thus give the infant up for adoption), it would be an entirely legal process.

Adoption "agencies" come into it in matching up willing birth mothers with adoptive parents.  They also tend to secure the attorneys that do the termination and adoption.  That "matching" process could devolve into baby brokering, so most agencies are regulated by the state to prevent that.  Such regulation cannot discriminate between religious and secular adoption agencies.

The other aspect of it is that the adoption agencies, particularly religiously affiliated ones, often provide support for the birth mother in terms of medical care, room and board, etc. during the pregnancy, and also for the child.

So the fees comprise payment for the legal services, as well as either a donation to the charitable org/religiously affiliated org or compensation for supporting the birth mother during the pregnancy.  Fees that go beyond such "services rendered" would be illegal under state laws regulating the agencies.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Was this OP thread about SCOTUS or this? Because this seems rather political 

 

Religious groups will take positions and make statements about those they believe are sinning.  It's what they do.  It inevitably overlaps with issues that are "political."  Thus are all matters of conscience.

Now, if you want to talk about the hypocrisy of the RCC in the US, which gets up in arms about abortion, but as a governing body at a similar level, doesn't say SHIT about shitty treatment of immigrants......

Quote

Exodus 12:49 and Leviticus 24:22 – “There shall be one law for the native and for the alien who resides among you.”

Exodus 22:21 – Moses gives God’s law:  “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

Leviticus 19:33-34 and 24:22 – When the alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien.  The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt:  I am the Lord your God.”

Deuteronomy 6:10-13 – The people of Israel are made aware that the land had come to them as a gift from God and they were to remember that they were once aliens.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 – “For the Lord your God…loves the strangers, providing them food and clothing.  You shall also love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Jeremiah 7:5-7 – “If you do not oppress the alien…then I will dwell with you in this place…”

Jeremiah 22:3-5 – Do no wrong or violence to the alien.

Ezekiel 47:21-22 – The aliens shall be to you as citizens, and shall also be allotted an inheritance.

Zechariah 7:8-10 – Do not oppress the alien.

Malachi 3:5 – The messenger will bear witness against those who thrust aside the alien.

Matthew 25:31-46 – “…I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Romans 12:13 – “Mark of the true Christian: “…Extend hospitality to strangers…”

Hebrews 13:1-2 – “…show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels…”

....[and there's plenty more]

....then I'm HAPPY to have that conversation.  The RCC in the US is having a real moment of schizophrenia -- there is a harsh, cruel, hyper-conservative faction (to which these bishops generally belong), and there is a much more humble, gentle faction, more closely echoing Pope Francis and Catholic Charities of the Rio Grande Valley, and Sister Pimentel.

But that's a theological discussion for us to have.  Happy to have it.  But it's not really for this thread.  Religion will do bad, religion will do good, but no matter what, it's never going away (not in any timespan that we can envision, at least).  So, knowing that it will exist, what's the best path?  And the historical record is pretty persuasive that the path the US has followed is better than most any alternative.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Just some background on adoption.  The adoption itself is basically a legal process.  If adoptive parents could locate a birth mother willing to terminate parental rights (and thus give the infant up for adoption), it would be an entirely legal process.

Adoption "agencies" come into it in matching up willing birth mothers with adoptive parents.  They also tend to secure the attorneys that do the termination and adoption.  That "matching" process could devolve into baby brokering, so most agencies are regulated by the state to prevent that.  Such regulation cannot discriminate between religious and secular adoption agencies.

The other aspect of it is that the adoption agencies, particularly religiously affiliated ones, often provide support for the birth mother in terms of medical care, room and board, etc. during the pregnancy, and also for the child.

So the fees comprise payment for the legal services, as well as either a donation to the charitable org/religiously affiliated org or compensation for supporting the birth mother during the pregnancy.  Fees that go beyond such "services rendered" would be illegal under state laws regulating the agencies.

Believe me, I'm intimately aware of the process and what you describe is exactly what happened in my case. I fully understand the money my parents paid to the agency was used to cover those expenses, including boarding my birthmother for a few months. Yet, still, the transaction, in and of itself, is the same as buying a newborn calf from your neighboring farmer who took care of its mother - the only difference is a human mother is giving her consent for her child to be sold. At the end of the day, the new parents are purchasing a baby from a vendor.

Another thing that gets me is that the religiously-affiliated agency is placing their judgment of the worthiness of a couple based on their own religious beliefs (religious discrimination) and, thus, the child will more than likely be raised believing the same thing because he/she happened to have been purchased by the selected parents. As for myself, I struggled mightily with being raised in a hypocritical Southern Baptist church that made me miserable until I was old enough to get out of it.

And, yes, I also understand that no child chooses their naturally-born parents and sometimes eventually reject their religion.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose I should add that the Philadelphia Supreme Court case did not expressly deal with adoption agencies, doing adoptions.

Instead, Philly had contracted with various organizations, including the Catholic Charities (or similar) to locate and screen potential FOSTER parents.  The Catholic org refused to present same-sex couples as potential foster parents, so Philadelphia terminated the contract, which was held to be unlawful.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This topic is always such a beating.

Guys, religion ain't going away. Religious people aren't going to suddenly stop being religious and even if they did, they'd be just as irrational and stupid as they are now. Because they're people and people are irrational and stupid about all kinds of shit. The people who thinks there's really a significant number of exceptions to that are some of the most irrational and stupid people on earth.

If we got rid of all the religious books and all of the science books, they’d eventually get re-written. The religious books would be very different. The science books would be pretty much the same. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

The religious books would be very different.

Would they?

We have had multiple faiths spring up around the world, independently of each other.  Yet all -- in terms of scripture and tenets -- seem to have the same formula.  There's a supreme being(s), you should love/revere that being, you should love your fellow man, you should show hospitality to the stranger, etc.  I mean, it's a high school student of religion cliche, but not without some truth -- almost all religions are the same, when you get down to it.

If man hit the reset button and created religion from scratch, it would end up looking a lot like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. look today.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Would they?

We have had multiple faiths spring up around the world, independently of each other.  Yet all -- in terms of scripture and tenets -- seem to have the same formula.  There's a supreme being(s), you should love/revere that being, you should love your fellow man, you should show hospitality to the stranger, etc.  I mean, it's a high school student of religion cliche, but not without some truth -- almost all religions are the same, when you get down to it.

If man hit the reset button and created religion from scratch, it would end up looking a lot like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. look today.

Yes, in terms of the mythology, they’d be very different. Buddhism isn’t a theistic religion. Consider the difference between the polytheistic Hinduism and the monotheistic Abrahamic religions. (Some would argue that the trinity makes Christianity a polytheistic religion but that’s not really relevant.) The point is you’d have different gods, different creation myths, different stories explaining things simple people don’t understand. You think the Book of Mormon would get written a second time? I’m still amazed it got written and accepted the first time.

Whatever new religious books got written, people would still use them as an excuse to oppress those unbelieving scum who read a different religious book. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Would they?

We have had multiple faiths spring up around the world, independently of each other.  Yet all -- in terms of scripture and tenets -- seem to have the same formula.  There's a supreme being(s), you should love/revere that being, you should love your fellow man, you should show hospitality to the stranger, etc.  I mean, it's a high school student of religion cliche, but not without some truth -- almost all religions are the same, when you get down to it.

If man hit the reset button and created religion from scratch, it would end up looking a lot like Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, etc. look today.

Think that part would be missing from religious text if they started over in the year 2021

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...