(This is meant to cause thought and discussion)
Over the past several weeks and indeed months the expanded Middle Eastern world, stretching from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west, has begun to catch fire. I’m not an expert on the dealings of the Middle East but I know a good bit about politics, history and the desires of people on many sides of the ideological spectrum. These are just some observations I’ve made and all the facts can be easily verifiable with much of the information being hard not to find so it’s not like this is just some random invented conspiracy theory. But I do want to stress that this is just a train of thought and potential connections to try and explain the interesting nature of the events in Egypt particularly.
Here is a timeline of events;
Dec 2010- Jan 2011: Tunisia
Jan 9-15/30, 2011: Sudan
Jan 14- present: Jordan
Jan 25- present: Egypt
Jan 26- present: Syria
Jan 27- present: Yemen
There are a number of smaller protests & riots in at least 4 other regional countries.
-- In Tunisia after a number of large protests and riots the president was ousted and forced to leave the country.
-- The events in Sudan have been going on for many years. After a 20 year civil war and widespread ethnic cleansing, primarily from Islamic and government forces against the minority Christian and tribal peoples, southern Sudan voted for independence. Between Jan 9-15, 2011 the people of southern Sudan held a referendum and the final results released Jan 30 showed that 98.8% of the southern population supported independence. One group that has been linked to the troubles in Sudan is known as the Muslim Brotherhood.
-- In Jordan similar protests occurred and the Jordanian king fired his Cabinet members in hopes of appeasing the people. There is also a Muslim Brotherhood connection.
-- The events in Egypt have been very complex and will have widespread results. Egypt has long been a US ally and a relatively stable force in the Middle East. Since Hosni Mubarak took power some 30 years ago Egypt has also taken a fairly peaceful stance toward Israel. Although the protests are new the problems leading up to them have been building for a long time. Despite the government’s pro-US stance and period of general economic success (compared to other countries) the government has also kept tight control over the media, political dissent and the military instead of the people have held control for much of Egypt’s modern history. Because of higher food prices, unemployment and a dictatorship the people have been ready to revolt however the reasons why they revolted now, 30 years after Mubarak took over, is something we should look into.
-- Syria has seen protests and deaths but the result and end of protests has yet to be seen.
-- Yemen, there have been relatively minor protests and their president pledged he wouldn’t seek another term.
Now back to Egypt. Egypt has been a US strategic ally for many years and they’ve had the same autocratic regime for decades. When you look at the whole situation, the way its unfolded, how it started, its current status, it all seems to be a bit suspect.
For example, this has been the largest demonstration in Egypt for many many years. If 250 people gathered in protest in Nov. 2009 they would have been met with a crushing police and even military response. But for some odd reason hundreds of thousands of people have been allowed to gather now with extreme tolerance by the government.
The protests began Jan 25th , a day chosen to coincide with the holiday “National Police Day”, but during that time the Egyptian military (which pretty much controls the nation) was preparing for very important talks here in the US about their military foreign aid. On Jan 29th their top brass were all at the Pentagon and so any response to these protests would have been slow and indeed the Egyptian government was very slow to respond. Anyone who has access to information and who knows about foreign aid talks would have known that the leaders of the Egyptian military would be out of the country for a period of time and it would be a relatively safe period to launch or at least inflame the protests.
Another curiosity is that Egypt has a population of 80 million and yet large protests only erupted in Cairo and Alexandria. Even though the police and military were ordered to not fire on the protestors the growth of the gatherings remained localized in those 2 cities with a smaller demonstrations and riots in a few others. In Europe & the US during the start of the Iraq war there were hundreds of protests some including tens of thousands of people.
Why then, in a nation with such a history of “horrors” would these protests be so small relative to the population AND compared with the grievances they claim it to be about, especially when they know that police and military forces wouldn’t stop them? It just doesn’t make sense unless perhaps these events began naturally but were inflamed by outside forces in order to try to topple the government. If any people lived utterly dreaded lives for decades when given the chance to speak out they would but in Egypt it has just been a modest affaire with some of the groups involved coming from outside Egypt or were banned in the country such as the Muslim Brotherhood.
There has been increasing evidence that the extreme left in the US and Europe has been courting extremist Islam as a means to end the dominance of America, capitalism and true freedom. One such group is the US based “Code Pink” an organization of women who claim to be against war and for peace. Why then would Code Pink have placed an ad on the English site for the Muslim Brotherhood which asks them to “Help us Cleanse our Nation”?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a radical group that opposes the state of Israel, supports extremist Islamic law and has connections with many other groups, some known terrorist organizations. The MB has been banned in Egypt for several years and has very little popular support there. Why then has there been so much news talking about their potential power? I personally believe it’s because the MB and similar groups have been getting outside support, which has been seen.
One way you solidify support for your movement is by showing how bad the other side is. Most demonstrations have been fairly peaceful and as I’ve stated before the military have official orders to not engage in conflict with the demonstrators. A method of gaining popular support is by having more radical supporters pose as the “enemy”, in this case out of uniform and retired police/government people, and cause trouble. Then you can claim that while your protestors have been good and only want peace the evil government and your opposition have engaged in violence. This was a tactic used by Nazi Germany and helped justify the invasion of Poland.
Now I’m not suggesting that it isn’t possible for government supporters to engage in violence and I’m sure some have but I also know that by posing as your enemy and doing something violent it’s a great way to gain support.
Another interesting thing is the way our government has reacted to this situation. The Obama administration has said many times throughout the years that they would support any nation or people who wanted to be free. So why has the Obama admin. taken a “deer in headlights” approach? Neither the president nor State Dept. said anything definitive for days in the beginning and the limited words they have said since have all been a bit of “duck & cover”, not saying anything in strong support for the end of the Mubarak regime or for Mubarak’s people to stay in power. All they’ve said is that the demonstrators’ demands should be heard; that free elections need to be held, there needs to be a peaceful transition and that Mubarak should probably stand down. Obama’s gov. only began being vocal about Mubarak stepping down when Mubarak himself said he wouldn’t run for another term.
Of course some of the biggest backers of this administration has come from the far left and include former domestic terrorists and people like George Soros.
Soros and his many organizations have for years talked about the need to end capitalism, restructure the US and have been fairly vocal and direct with flat out socialist (politically & economically) rhetoric. One of the “leaders” to come out of the throng of protestors is a man named Mohamed ElBaradei. ElBaradei was born in Egypt but has lived in London for decades. He is also on the board, along with George Soros, of the International Crisis Group.
The ICG is a leading NGO and is a large source of advice for foreign governments, the UN, World Bank and EU. I’m not saying the ICG has anything to do with this in the least but it’s a big link between ElBaradei and Soros; the two also have connections with the Council on Foreign Relations.
In 1992 Soros was largely responsible for the devaluation of the pound Sterling and earned over $1 billion off the damaged finances of 50 million British. He has consistently said and been reported saying how amused he was at the whole thing and how he had actually planned to devalue the pound far more. He also had a part in the 1997 Asian financial crisis which at its end the affected nations lost a total of 32% of its nominal GDP.
There has been a great deal of reports and papers showing the increasing connection & friendly behavior between the liberals in the US & Europe and radical extremist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood which though banned in Egypt actually have a fair chance of greatly exploiting the unrest in Egypt to their benefit. Not to mention extremist groups across the Middle East. Groups Soros donates to or runs gives around $600 million annually and much of the money goes to far left causes including the destruction of Israel and to wage war on the west & capitalism (according to their own people & websites).
Mohamed ElBaradei told the media at the beginning that he had no intention of running for president of Egypt but several days later he changed his story saying that if the people wanted him to run he would.
The Mubarak regime has been one of limited rights and crushing opposition but it has also been one of the most stable governments in the entire region. Egypt has been an ally to the US and has treaties with Israel. Under Mubarak the Egyptian economy has grown and is comparably wealthy (excluding oil dominate economies). Despite a recent downturn in their economy (which was the main cause for the demonstrations at the beginning) Egypt has things pretty good when you look at places like Sudan, its southern neighbor. This brings me to my final point:
The demonstrations did start over the economy but as you watched things unfold it became more and more about the overthrow of the government. This coincided with an influx of foreign supporters like ElBaradei and an increasing presence of the illegal Muslim Brotherhood. The MB has also had a hand in similar protests and riots across several countries.
So I think the start of the events began fairly organically but was influenced by outside and extremist groups at a time when the government was ill-prepared to act. The goal, I believe, was the overturn of the government in Egypt as well as other nations in order to set up further extremist and anti-American/anti-free market states. All helped by the support of people like Soros (either directly or in directly) and groups like Code Pink that are generally behind the scenes.
If these protests were all ran by the people of Egypt without extremist or outside influence, given that the government has promised to let them demonstrate, why have they not taken off in many other cities? If a 20% unemployment rate was the primary factor why the limited extent of the protests? And why after only 14 days has the number of protestors dropped dramatically? Mubarak has said he will step down at the end of his term but they still lack an “opposition” government and there’s a threat that his supporters will take over so reason would suggest that the size and strength of the movement would be growing, not shrinking, and not being taken over (at least on the front and in the eyes of the west) by the MB, a group with little public support in Egypt.
Perhaps there is much more here than meets the eye.
--Jacob Bogle, 2/7/2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Harvey Milk, You, LGBT's and the 21st Century
"If a bullet should enter my brain, let it destroy every closet door".-- Harvey Milk, 1930-78
I have been involved in politics since my early teens. I've been an adviser to a presidential campaign and volunteered for another. I helped an unknown reach 3rd place (out of 9) in Tennessee's last governors race, spending only a few thousand dollars where the others spent millions. Throughout the years I have traveled thousands of miles and met thousands of people.
From my experience two things became very clear. One, that America as a nation and as a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 sovereign States has a great deal of problems along with a great many strengths. The second thing I learned is that the American people have one major flaw- their inability to uphold the very foundations of our country.
At the start of the Revolutionary War only 12% of the population supported the idea of a free America. Today, it's questionable if a majority feels we should all have the exact same rights. As civil rights movements go, the struggle for equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people (LGBT) has been comparatively peaceful. Harvey Milk, however, is one example of those who fought peacefully but died at the hands of an individual, and society, that couldn't bare the thought of gays being afforded the same nation as their straight counterparts.
Throughout history being a homosexual was considered to be a perfectly fine lifestyle, in fact, for most of world history there wasn't even a term for homosexual. In Greece and Rome if you were a good citizen you had male lovers, and even today several indigenous tribes (Papua New Guinea, etc.) engage in homosexual activities to become a "man" in their society. It has only been in the past few hundred years that being LGBT became not only taboo but an affront to God, human nature, and something to be legislated.
It's fairly easy to belong to social websites or hang around similar people and think that the majority of our American family is truly fine with gays and lesbians. We elect a black president and swear that it's Fox News and the Church alone keeping LGBT persons suppressed. Sadly, the truth is far more sinister. Yes, there are mainstream media and religious groups who are opposed to LGBT equal rights, but the real problem comes down to you. The individual who only pretends to be "enlightened" yet who's heart hides a secret. A secret that allows you to embrace hypocrisy, bigotry and support a society that turns its head away and allows thousands of LGBT youths to commit suicide each year.
The "homosexual agenda" is not about having more rights, nor to have special treatment. The only thing that we as a group want is equal rights; the same ones you have.
As a Christian gay man it hurts me to know that the reality is that so many people who claim to be decent and good actually have a heart of a sickeningly ignorant nature. As an American citizen it disgusts me to know how many have no real understanding or respect for our founding, our history of struggle, or of the promise of freedom that America is supposed to embody.
From time to time I find myself looking at the world through rose colored glasses and have my hopes falsely raised; thinking that perhaps all we have gone through might have brought us victory. That feeling never lasts for long.
It's hard for me to really understand how a society with a population that is always screaming about human rights violations overseas, that preaches equality, that demands the rule of law (i.g the Constitution's declaration of inherent unalienable human rights) can be consumed with such hate, hypocrisy and self-centeredness as a majority.
The only way for this to stop is for those who support justice, understands the need for all of our civil rights and who wishes a better country for the future to rise up. To take injustice by the throat and remove it from our fair land. The only way for LGBT people to have a decent life, to not have to deal with the problems of vast intolerance and overwhelming obstacles is for everyone to make their voices heard.
No one wants to go through the trials of "coming out", but the only way to help future generations from having to endure such pain is for those who have not stood out, who have not been truthful with themselves or those around them to come out of the closet and breathe new breath into your lives. Men and women like Harvey Milk took that bullet to their heads so that you and I could stand tall and live openly and freely. We have all endured some level of discrimination and it is being perpetrated not by the "rabid right-wing" but by our silent acquiescence and with the quiet consent of those around you. Speak up, be your true self, and help make people understand (through discussion and example) that ignorance and silence are just as much of a threat to our liberties as it is to theirs; that we should no longer live afraid or hidden.
There are two great walls left in America; the wall that keeps Native Americans locked in their reservations and the wall that keeps LGBT individuals locked in their closet of fear, anger, hurt and solitude.
We live in the 300th millennium of modern human existence and in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The time is now, not tomorrow, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If society, if government would deny you the rights laid down at the beginning of creation then you must take them. Your life, your liberty and your happiness should not be held in the hands of government or strangers, it is in your hands. So go and make your voice heard not only for yourself but also for others in your country who have gone and those yet to come.
--Jacob Bogle
03/19/2009
Revised Edition 11/27/12
I have been involved in politics since my early teens. I've been an adviser to a presidential campaign and volunteered for another. I helped an unknown reach 3rd place (out of 9) in Tennessee's last governors race, spending only a few thousand dollars where the others spent millions. Throughout the years I have traveled thousands of miles and met thousands of people.
From my experience two things became very clear. One, that America as a nation and as a Constitutional Republic made up of 50 sovereign States has a great deal of problems along with a great many strengths. The second thing I learned is that the American people have one major flaw- their inability to uphold the very foundations of our country.
At the start of the Revolutionary War only 12% of the population supported the idea of a free America. Today, it's questionable if a majority feels we should all have the exact same rights. As civil rights movements go, the struggle for equal rights for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people (LGBT) has been comparatively peaceful. Harvey Milk, however, is one example of those who fought peacefully but died at the hands of an individual, and society, that couldn't bare the thought of gays being afforded the same nation as their straight counterparts.
Throughout history being a homosexual was considered to be a perfectly fine lifestyle, in fact, for most of world history there wasn't even a term for homosexual. In Greece and Rome if you were a good citizen you had male lovers, and even today several indigenous tribes (Papua New Guinea, etc.) engage in homosexual activities to become a "man" in their society. It has only been in the past few hundred years that being LGBT became not only taboo but an affront to God, human nature, and something to be legislated.
It's fairly easy to belong to social websites or hang around similar people and think that the majority of our American family is truly fine with gays and lesbians. We elect a black president and swear that it's Fox News and the Church alone keeping LGBT persons suppressed. Sadly, the truth is far more sinister. Yes, there are mainstream media and religious groups who are opposed to LGBT equal rights, but the real problem comes down to you. The individual who only pretends to be "enlightened" yet who's heart hides a secret. A secret that allows you to embrace hypocrisy, bigotry and support a society that turns its head away and allows thousands of LGBT youths to commit suicide each year.
The "homosexual agenda" is not about having more rights, nor to have special treatment. The only thing that we as a group want is equal rights; the same ones you have.
As a Christian gay man it hurts me to know that the reality is that so many people who claim to be decent and good actually have a heart of a sickeningly ignorant nature. As an American citizen it disgusts me to know how many have no real understanding or respect for our founding, our history of struggle, or of the promise of freedom that America is supposed to embody.
From time to time I find myself looking at the world through rose colored glasses and have my hopes falsely raised; thinking that perhaps all we have gone through might have brought us victory. That feeling never lasts for long.
It's hard for me to really understand how a society with a population that is always screaming about human rights violations overseas, that preaches equality, that demands the rule of law (i.g the Constitution's declaration of inherent unalienable human rights) can be consumed with such hate, hypocrisy and self-centeredness as a majority.
The only way for this to stop is for those who support justice, understands the need for all of our civil rights and who wishes a better country for the future to rise up. To take injustice by the throat and remove it from our fair land. The only way for LGBT people to have a decent life, to not have to deal with the problems of vast intolerance and overwhelming obstacles is for everyone to make their voices heard.
No one wants to go through the trials of "coming out", but the only way to help future generations from having to endure such pain is for those who have not stood out, who have not been truthful with themselves or those around them to come out of the closet and breathe new breath into your lives. Men and women like Harvey Milk took that bullet to their heads so that you and I could stand tall and live openly and freely. We have all endured some level of discrimination and it is being perpetrated not by the "rabid right-wing" but by our silent acquiescence and with the quiet consent of those around you. Speak up, be your true self, and help make people understand (through discussion and example) that ignorance and silence are just as much of a threat to our liberties as it is to theirs; that we should no longer live afraid or hidden.
There are two great walls left in America; the wall that keeps Native Americans locked in their reservations and the wall that keeps LGBT individuals locked in their closet of fear, anger, hurt and solitude.
We live in the 300th millennium of modern human existence and in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. The time is now, not tomorrow, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
If society, if government would deny you the rights laid down at the beginning of creation then you must take them. Your life, your liberty and your happiness should not be held in the hands of government or strangers, it is in your hands. So go and make your voice heard not only for yourself but also for others in your country who have gone and those yet to come.
--Jacob Bogle
03/19/2009
Revised Edition 11/27/12
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Homosexuality and Christianity (And why it's ok)
In today’s world there seems to be a massive
conflict between the concept of homosexuality and the popular interpretations
of Biblical scripture. There are few things more important, more personal, and
more integral to an individual than their faith and sexuality. This has led, in
modern times, to much hurt, hatred, and misunderstanding, and regrettably it
has also led to many leaving Christianity and/or committing suicide. How can a
person live in peace with themselves when they are one way, yet they think that
the way they are goes against the very God that made them?
Much of what we see today in our culture, churches, and personal ideals comes from a period of time beginning shortly before the writing of the King James version (KJV) of the Bible. To better understand this complicated topic we must look into the history of Christianity and how things change over time.
Christianity as a solidified religion didn't really come about until circa 325 AD when Emperor Constantine the Great prompted the First Council of Nicea. And the Bible itself (the 66 books of the Old Testament/New Testament) didn't really come about until 400 years after the Resurrection. The Bible wasn't written in English - in fact the original books were written in three different languages for the vast majority of the text. The majority of the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Both languages have many differences to English including words with no translations and many with multiple meanings. This makes it imperative to use the original words and their context (at the time of writing) to really understand what the Bible says as it applies to us today.
Historically homosexuality wasn't a concept the ancients really understood, at least not as an orientation. For most of known human history we see examples of same-sex relationships and in many cultures, such as Greece and Rome (from which we get our society today) same-sex relationships had various levels of acceptance all the way up to being an important and expected part of life. There weren't "gay/straight" people, there were just people. In many cases, including Native American cultures, those who had an attraction to members of the same sex were placed in a higher class, usually as spiritual leaders. Being "gay" was not a bad thing, it wasn't unmanly, and most leaders had at least one homosexual relationship. Instead of being in a separate box they were just regular individuals like everyone else.
In many ancient cultures, and some modern ones, it was commonplace to have male lovers, and in order to become a "man" there needed to be some type of homosexual relationship or activity. Homosexuality was a more-or-less normal thing, it was often important in the raising of boys and an integral part of their cultures and religions. The relationships developed lasted for many years, and added a great deal to the emotional maturity of those involved. It was something to be honored. For example, the story of the Sacred Band of Thebes is one that the ancients held in high regard. The Sacred Band of Thebes was a military group of 150 age-structured male couples who fought and died -each and every one together- with great gallantry in the battle of Leuctra (371 BC). I can give pages of positive homosexual accounts throughout the world ranging from 1500 BC all the way up to modern times; however, the purpose of this is to discuss sexuality and Christianity. So with that proven history and context I will move on to what the Bible itself says.
There are many examples of flawed interpretations between the original texts and English/Latin translations. Some were simple mistakes; others were done for the sole sake of personal opinion and politics. Most of the Bible has been translated correctly but in some areas, including alleged texts on homosexuality, it has been greatly perverted by accident and conscious attempts to oppress. The KJV has been used for centuries to oppress, deny and murder many groups - women, divorcĂ©es, blacks, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, physically disabled, intellectuals and dozens of other minorities. This isn't "for the Bible tells me so", but all because of incorrect translations and people’s interpretations based on their own pre-existing prejudices. The error is with man.
So how do we overcome this? By looking at the actual words and contexts, and then letting the Bible speak for itself, free from our own desires, ideas or "it just does" thoughts.
The extremists and most regular Christians often point to the following scriptures as proof of God’s dislike for homosexuality and evidence that being gay is wrong:
1.Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
2.Leviticus 20:13: man lie with mankind as with woman
3.Romans 1:26-27: men, leaving the natural use of the woman
4.1 Corinthians 6:9: nor effeminate
When reading the Bible many tend to pull out single verses and use them as weapons, all the while ignoring the rest of the passage, chapter, its context and the fact that many words in the KJV do not have the same meaning as they do today. This is a very dangerous practice and the Bible itself warns against it (2 Timothy 2:15).
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is perhaps the most used passage aimed at condemning homosexuals. That fact is somewhat odd in that Genesis is part of the Jewish scripture, written by Jews and most Jews don't see it as having anything to do with homosexuals but with those who are rude, cruel, show no manners and the like.
Before I get into things I want to give you an interesting fact. The names "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" were not the actual names of the cities. "Sodom" comes from Hebrew S'dom which means "burnt" and "Gomorrah" comes from amroah which means "a ruined heap". It's obvious the names were given after the destruction of those cities and so the term 'sodomite' is vastly misinterpreted and would seem to actually mean "those of the burnt".
Genesis 19:3-5
3. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Obviously the controversy centers on the fifth verse. I find it hard to see how people can use this story as a means of condemning a group of people on moral grounds when in verse 8 Lot offers his own daughters, against their will, and without marriage, to be raped by the townsmen. But aside from that blaring issue it is safe to assume that not every single man in the city was gay, to believe that is absurd. The fact that Lot had lived in Sodom for years and offered his daughters up to the men shows that he knew they were heterosexuals. What happened was these men, these heterosexual men, came to these "strangers" and in an attempt to assert their power over them they wanted to rape them. Now, this isn't a foreign concept. In ancient times it was common to rape men and women to show dominance, to humiliate and to destroy whatever desires of action (good or bad) the victims might have had. You see, the men of Sodom saw the angels as strangers and did not know if they were there to do harm, after all Lot did hide them away. These men of Sodom (and the victor armies who would rape the conquered) were not homosexual in the least, they were committing acts of violence and rape, and that is the crime, that is the sin. To be a heterosexual male and then to be raped by another male goes well beyond just a case of rape as it would force them into an act that goes against their very own individual nature and would be a source of ultimate humiliation.
Being homosexual and having same-sex sex are NOT the same thing. Over 90% of men will, at least once, find themselves sexually attracted to another man to some degree, especially during adolescents. It doesn't make them gay. A man can have sex with women, men, pretty much anything that feels good but it doesn't make them a non-heterosexual. This passage mentions nothing about being homosexual; it only talks about same-sex rape and the lack of hospitality. While the physical sin was rape, the greater lesson was that of hospitality. In that time being a proper host was paramount. To violate hospitality laws could result in death. You were to treat guests, strangers, all people coming to your town or home with great honor and respect. You would offer them all you had including protection. When the men of Sodom threatened to rape the angels they broke all codes of hospitality and showed themselves to be exceedingly corrupt, and in the eyes of the Hebrews and by their laws they were vile and worthy of destruction.
Much of what we see today in our culture, churches, and personal ideals comes from a period of time beginning shortly before the writing of the King James version (KJV) of the Bible. To better understand this complicated topic we must look into the history of Christianity and how things change over time.
Christianity as a solidified religion didn't really come about until circa 325 AD when Emperor Constantine the Great prompted the First Council of Nicea. And the Bible itself (the 66 books of the Old Testament/New Testament) didn't really come about until 400 years after the Resurrection. The Bible wasn't written in English - in fact the original books were written in three different languages for the vast majority of the text. The majority of the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. Both languages have many differences to English including words with no translations and many with multiple meanings. This makes it imperative to use the original words and their context (at the time of writing) to really understand what the Bible says as it applies to us today.
Historically homosexuality wasn't a concept the ancients really understood, at least not as an orientation. For most of known human history we see examples of same-sex relationships and in many cultures, such as Greece and Rome (from which we get our society today) same-sex relationships had various levels of acceptance all the way up to being an important and expected part of life. There weren't "gay/straight" people, there were just people. In many cases, including Native American cultures, those who had an attraction to members of the same sex were placed in a higher class, usually as spiritual leaders. Being "gay" was not a bad thing, it wasn't unmanly, and most leaders had at least one homosexual relationship. Instead of being in a separate box they were just regular individuals like everyone else.
In many ancient cultures, and some modern ones, it was commonplace to have male lovers, and in order to become a "man" there needed to be some type of homosexual relationship or activity. Homosexuality was a more-or-less normal thing, it was often important in the raising of boys and an integral part of their cultures and religions. The relationships developed lasted for many years, and added a great deal to the emotional maturity of those involved. It was something to be honored. For example, the story of the Sacred Band of Thebes is one that the ancients held in high regard. The Sacred Band of Thebes was a military group of 150 age-structured male couples who fought and died -each and every one together- with great gallantry in the battle of Leuctra (371 BC). I can give pages of positive homosexual accounts throughout the world ranging from 1500 BC all the way up to modern times; however, the purpose of this is to discuss sexuality and Christianity. So with that proven history and context I will move on to what the Bible itself says.
There are many examples of flawed interpretations between the original texts and English/Latin translations. Some were simple mistakes; others were done for the sole sake of personal opinion and politics. Most of the Bible has been translated correctly but in some areas, including alleged texts on homosexuality, it has been greatly perverted by accident and conscious attempts to oppress. The KJV has been used for centuries to oppress, deny and murder many groups - women, divorcĂ©es, blacks, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, physically disabled, intellectuals and dozens of other minorities. This isn't "for the Bible tells me so", but all because of incorrect translations and people’s interpretations based on their own pre-existing prejudices. The error is with man.
So how do we overcome this? By looking at the actual words and contexts, and then letting the Bible speak for itself, free from our own desires, ideas or "it just does" thoughts.
The extremists and most regular Christians often point to the following scriptures as proof of God’s dislike for homosexuality and evidence that being gay is wrong:
1.Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
2.Leviticus 20:13: man lie with mankind as with woman
3.Romans 1:26-27: men, leaving the natural use of the woman
4.1 Corinthians 6:9: nor effeminate
When reading the Bible many tend to pull out single verses and use them as weapons, all the while ignoring the rest of the passage, chapter, its context and the fact that many words in the KJV do not have the same meaning as they do today. This is a very dangerous practice and the Bible itself warns against it (2 Timothy 2:15).
The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is perhaps the most used passage aimed at condemning homosexuals. That fact is somewhat odd in that Genesis is part of the Jewish scripture, written by Jews and most Jews don't see it as having anything to do with homosexuals but with those who are rude, cruel, show no manners and the like.
Before I get into things I want to give you an interesting fact. The names "Sodom" and "Gomorrah" were not the actual names of the cities. "Sodom" comes from Hebrew S'dom which means "burnt" and "Gomorrah" comes from amroah which means "a ruined heap". It's obvious the names were given after the destruction of those cities and so the term 'sodomite' is vastly misinterpreted and would seem to actually mean "those of the burnt".
Genesis 19:3-5
3. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
4. But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
5. And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
Obviously the controversy centers on the fifth verse. I find it hard to see how people can use this story as a means of condemning a group of people on moral grounds when in verse 8 Lot offers his own daughters, against their will, and without marriage, to be raped by the townsmen. But aside from that blaring issue it is safe to assume that not every single man in the city was gay, to believe that is absurd. The fact that Lot had lived in Sodom for years and offered his daughters up to the men shows that he knew they were heterosexuals. What happened was these men, these heterosexual men, came to these "strangers" and in an attempt to assert their power over them they wanted to rape them. Now, this isn't a foreign concept. In ancient times it was common to rape men and women to show dominance, to humiliate and to destroy whatever desires of action (good or bad) the victims might have had. You see, the men of Sodom saw the angels as strangers and did not know if they were there to do harm, after all Lot did hide them away. These men of Sodom (and the victor armies who would rape the conquered) were not homosexual in the least, they were committing acts of violence and rape, and that is the crime, that is the sin. To be a heterosexual male and then to be raped by another male goes well beyond just a case of rape as it would force them into an act that goes against their very own individual nature and would be a source of ultimate humiliation.
Being homosexual and having same-sex sex are NOT the same thing. Over 90% of men will, at least once, find themselves sexually attracted to another man to some degree, especially during adolescents. It doesn't make them gay. A man can have sex with women, men, pretty much anything that feels good but it doesn't make them a non-heterosexual. This passage mentions nothing about being homosexual; it only talks about same-sex rape and the lack of hospitality. While the physical sin was rape, the greater lesson was that of hospitality. In that time being a proper host was paramount. To violate hospitality laws could result in death. You were to treat guests, strangers, all people coming to your town or home with great honor and respect. You would offer them all you had including protection. When the men of Sodom threatened to rape the angels they broke all codes of hospitality and showed themselves to be exceedingly corrupt, and in the eyes of the Hebrews and by their laws they were vile and worthy of destruction.
Furthermore, in the Book of Jasher in the
Hebrew Talmud (Sanhedrin 109a) it recounts two incidents of a young girl (one involved Lot's daughter Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city walls until she was eaten by bees. The Talmud concludes "the Lord said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous, that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry [her screams] that has reached me." Gen. 18:20-21
The 'moral' of the story is that rape is wrong and that dishonor is worthy of death, according to ancient laws. Love and/or sex among consensual people couldn't be a sin. The larger issue of rabbinic law falls upon the lack of hospitality.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Most agree that this verse is talking about same-sex sex but again it's not talking about those whose nature it is to be homosexual. Christianity is not about the Old Testament (OT) which Leviticus is in; in fact the OT has nothing to do with the actual Christian faith. The New Testament (NT), the story of Christ (thus Christian) is Christianity, not the Jewish books of the OT. But, for argument’s sake, let us say that the OT is as important as the NT. Many hold that you must believe the entire Bible or none of it - well this produces a problem. The problem arises because many OT verses tell us that much of modern daily life is an abomination. It is a sin to eat pork and certain birds; slavery is acceptable; giving your daughters away is common; and beating disobedient women and children is encouraged. Surely we no longer agree to those things. So how is it that we follow one part (anti-gay, although it isn't talking about actual homosexuals) but not another?
Some would say, because Jesus came to fulfill the law. This is true. But if, through Christ, we no longer have to stone our children to death, why then must we discriminate against gays? The only logical answer is because it fits in with personal opinion only. To be Christian is to worship Christ and Jesus himself never said a single word about born homosexuals. We are not the judge of mankind, we do not know the mind of God, we haven't the right to say one scripture is law and another is not, for to do that is a sin. The OT isn't part of the faith of Christianity, it is its history and it contains many good ways to live your life, to treat others and so on, but it is not equally the law of God unless we are to follow all of it, which we cannot.
Ethics, laws, ideas all change. What doesn't change is the direct word of God (aka Jesus Christ). God may have spoken to Moses (the accepted author of the first five books of the OT) but that doesn't mean Moses was free from error nor does it mean everything within was spoken from God, after-all those books weren't even put on paper until 600 BC, far removed from the time of Moses. It also doesn't mean that what men claim is scripture (as is how the Bible as it is today came to be though a series of councils) is the word of God.
Romans 1:26-27
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Here is a classic example of a word having two different meanings because of changes in society/linguistics and because of misinterpretation. Using the modern meaning of the word "natural" you would think that it's obvious, a man leaving the assumed normal use of a woman and having sex with another man. But it doesn't take into account the question of orientation, something the ancients had no concept of. Having an orientation didn't matter because you simply were who you were; unlike today where we're all forced to live in boxes. We are identified by what makes us different as opposed to the correct way of being identified as humans with the same rights as everyone else, regardless of other characteristics.
A key to understanding this and other NT passages is to remember that Paul, the author of Romans and 12 other books, was (while writing them) in his role as a promoter of this new "religion". During his life Christianity, at the time little more than a sect of Judaism, was illegal and heavily oppressed by the Roman Empire. This led Paul to find ways to separate this new Christian culture from the culture at large and to find ways he could attack Rome at its heart. Same-sex activities was an integral part of many popular Roman cults and so Paul, in an attempt to condemn the pagan cults, decided to deem a part of those cults 'immoral'. The acceptance of homosexual behavior (be it by heterosexuals or others) was not as widespread in Jewish culture as it was in Greco-Roman society, so it was simply another way to differentiate the "Christians" from the "Gentiles". Paul also said women weren't allowed to speak in church but few today support this notion.
This passage was originally written in Greek and the word "nature/natural" comes from the Greek word phusikos which means "instinct" or "governed by ones nature". Thus it is immoral to do that which is against your individual nature. A heterosexual man having sex with another man is a sin because it goes against their nature i.e. their instinct. However, a homosexual male having sex with another homosexual male is not a sin for it is within their nature. Again we see that the sin isn't that of homosexuality but of going against the way you were made. The people it speaks of have left what is natural for them to pursue that which is abnormal according to how they were made. Being a homosexual however is something that is inborn, it is your nature and so there isn't anything wrong with it.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...
Once again we have a problem with translating the original Greek into English and from Old English to modern. The term "effeminate" even today does not mean homosexual but one who acts like a woman, "girly", isn't manly etc. The trouble with using that is quite simply that what is and isn't - "manly" changes with every generation. In 2010 it may be considered unmanly to enjoy opera, say "I love you" or kiss another man (regardless of context), wear certain colors and so on, whereas in 1900 is was fairly common for youths to hold hands, grown men express their platonic love for one another and in order to be a true gentleman you would have to enjoy the finer things of life (opera, jewelry, etc). The Greek word used in this passage that has been translated to effeminate was malakia. Malakia means spineless, weakness, and was associated with femininity in men. Thus the passage not only has nothing to do with same-sex sex but also nothing to do with homosexuals. The sin the word refers to is that of being weak, acting like a woman (or man if you are a woman) and a lack of bravery, not standing up for what you believe in. During the time that passage was written homosexual relationships were not considered effeminate and were sometimes considered an integral part of becoming a strong male, especially in Greece.
The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind", most scholars agree, refers to prostitutes.
It is a sad thing that in our time homosexuality has been so closely linked to weakness, feminine behavior, perversion and so on, but that is the fault of society. The Bible does not make such a connection. In the past being gay was acceptable and looked upon as a decent, normal thing. Today that isn't the case. We have to ask ourselves which society is the correct one - the one that has condemned an innocent group of people for hundreds of years or the one that defended all its citizens, regardless of their personal lives, for thousands of years? There can be no mistake, the anti-gay feeling in modern times, the false teachings of some religious extremists that led to such a feeling - that is wrong, abnormal and goes against the will of God and the very nature of humanity.
Some ask, “if one is born gay and another is born predisposed to becoming an alcoholic, does that mean he should be a drunk?” I ask if you're born straight and another born to drinking, does that mean he should be a drunk? The answer is obvious. Alcoholism goes against biology, it wrecks the body, and it goes against morality because it causes physical and mental harm. Homosexuality causes no such harm; it hurts no one and is even mirrored in the animal kingdom in hundreds of different species. If God made all things then why would he make animals, who are documented in their same-sex behavior (and some exclusively gay) and yet contradict himself by making humans to be against homosexuality but allow many to be born that way? It makes no sense.
You might say that being gay is harmful because of the rates of depression and suicide among homosexuals (namely youths), however the problem isn't that they're gay. The problem is that their families, their country, say they are gross, evil, against God. Being told you're disgusting would make anyone depressed, and having your family and church turn away from you would make anyone think of suicide. It saddens me greatly to think that the most important group of people, our most beautiful resource, children, would be subjected to centuries worth of baseless hate and discrimination just because they have questions, just because they may have acknowledged their sexuality as they were made.
The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is no real reason why you cannot be both homosexual and a Christian. If you are gay you were made that way and God doesn't make mistakes. The problem isn't with you, but with those who would act foolishly and hatefully and try to hurt you because of their ignorance, closed mindedness and hate. God is about love and accepts all people who accept him, there is no need for false guilt. Mankind has used the Bible as an excuse for harmful activities (like slavery) from the moment it came to being. Let us hope that after reading the facts the use of scripture for wrongful discrimination against gays and others will cease.
In closing I want to stress that the fault is not that of the faith or the actual words of God but lies with the men and women who try to cause evil. You may have experienced a lot of discrimination at the hands of those who profess to be Christian, but not all Christians are that way. The following is a list of groups/denominations which have a positive message or policy toward homosexuals:
-Generally, the Anglican Church of North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, hold the view that there are no grounds to condemn homosexuality as sinful based on the Bible.
-The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, has a current policy which states that persons who are homosexual in their self-understanding are allowed to be ordained, but must maintain a lifestyle abstinent of sexual relations. Outside of ordination the policy states that GLBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation.
-The Metropolitan Community Church is an international fellowship of Christian congregations. It is considered by many to be a full mainline denomination or communion. Currently there are 300 member congregations in 22 countries and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to GLBT communities. The acceptance of homosexuality is an important part of its theology.
-The Presbyterian Church (United States) is the largest U.S. Presbyterian body. Gays are welcome to become members of the church.
-Quakers, the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals.
-The United Church of Christ, In July, 2005, the 25th General Synod encouraged congregations to adopt wedding policies that do not discriminate based on the gender of the couple and to support legislation allowing homosexual marriage.
If you would like to copy this to another blog, website, send it in an email or to your friends please feel free to. I encourage it.
--Jacob Bogle, 03/26/2010
The 'moral' of the story is that rape is wrong and that dishonor is worthy of death, according to ancient laws. Love and/or sex among consensual people couldn't be a sin. The larger issue of rabbinic law falls upon the lack of hospitality.
Leviticus 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
Most agree that this verse is talking about same-sex sex but again it's not talking about those whose nature it is to be homosexual. Christianity is not about the Old Testament (OT) which Leviticus is in; in fact the OT has nothing to do with the actual Christian faith. The New Testament (NT), the story of Christ (thus Christian) is Christianity, not the Jewish books of the OT. But, for argument’s sake, let us say that the OT is as important as the NT. Many hold that you must believe the entire Bible or none of it - well this produces a problem. The problem arises because many OT verses tell us that much of modern daily life is an abomination. It is a sin to eat pork and certain birds; slavery is acceptable; giving your daughters away is common; and beating disobedient women and children is encouraged. Surely we no longer agree to those things. So how is it that we follow one part (anti-gay, although it isn't talking about actual homosexuals) but not another?
Some would say, because Jesus came to fulfill the law. This is true. But if, through Christ, we no longer have to stone our children to death, why then must we discriminate against gays? The only logical answer is because it fits in with personal opinion only. To be Christian is to worship Christ and Jesus himself never said a single word about born homosexuals. We are not the judge of mankind, we do not know the mind of God, we haven't the right to say one scripture is law and another is not, for to do that is a sin. The OT isn't part of the faith of Christianity, it is its history and it contains many good ways to live your life, to treat others and so on, but it is not equally the law of God unless we are to follow all of it, which we cannot.
Ethics, laws, ideas all change. What doesn't change is the direct word of God (aka Jesus Christ). God may have spoken to Moses (the accepted author of the first five books of the OT) but that doesn't mean Moses was free from error nor does it mean everything within was spoken from God, after-all those books weren't even put on paper until 600 BC, far removed from the time of Moses. It also doesn't mean that what men claim is scripture (as is how the Bible as it is today came to be though a series of councils) is the word of God.
Romans 1:26-27
26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
Here is a classic example of a word having two different meanings because of changes in society/linguistics and because of misinterpretation. Using the modern meaning of the word "natural" you would think that it's obvious, a man leaving the assumed normal use of a woman and having sex with another man. But it doesn't take into account the question of orientation, something the ancients had no concept of. Having an orientation didn't matter because you simply were who you were; unlike today where we're all forced to live in boxes. We are identified by what makes us different as opposed to the correct way of being identified as humans with the same rights as everyone else, regardless of other characteristics.
A key to understanding this and other NT passages is to remember that Paul, the author of Romans and 12 other books, was (while writing them) in his role as a promoter of this new "religion". During his life Christianity, at the time little more than a sect of Judaism, was illegal and heavily oppressed by the Roman Empire. This led Paul to find ways to separate this new Christian culture from the culture at large and to find ways he could attack Rome at its heart. Same-sex activities was an integral part of many popular Roman cults and so Paul, in an attempt to condemn the pagan cults, decided to deem a part of those cults 'immoral'. The acceptance of homosexual behavior (be it by heterosexuals or others) was not as widespread in Jewish culture as it was in Greco-Roman society, so it was simply another way to differentiate the "Christians" from the "Gentiles". Paul also said women weren't allowed to speak in church but few today support this notion.
This passage was originally written in Greek and the word "nature/natural" comes from the Greek word phusikos which means "instinct" or "governed by ones nature". Thus it is immoral to do that which is against your individual nature. A heterosexual man having sex with another man is a sin because it goes against their nature i.e. their instinct. However, a homosexual male having sex with another homosexual male is not a sin for it is within their nature. Again we see that the sin isn't that of homosexuality but of going against the way you were made. The people it speaks of have left what is natural for them to pursue that which is abnormal according to how they were made. Being a homosexual however is something that is inborn, it is your nature and so there isn't anything wrong with it.
1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...
Once again we have a problem with translating the original Greek into English and from Old English to modern. The term "effeminate" even today does not mean homosexual but one who acts like a woman, "girly", isn't manly etc. The trouble with using that is quite simply that what is and isn't - "manly" changes with every generation. In 2010 it may be considered unmanly to enjoy opera, say "I love you" or kiss another man (regardless of context), wear certain colors and so on, whereas in 1900 is was fairly common for youths to hold hands, grown men express their platonic love for one another and in order to be a true gentleman you would have to enjoy the finer things of life (opera, jewelry, etc). The Greek word used in this passage that has been translated to effeminate was malakia. Malakia means spineless, weakness, and was associated with femininity in men. Thus the passage not only has nothing to do with same-sex sex but also nothing to do with homosexuals. The sin the word refers to is that of being weak, acting like a woman (or man if you are a woman) and a lack of bravery, not standing up for what you believe in. During the time that passage was written homosexual relationships were not considered effeminate and were sometimes considered an integral part of becoming a strong male, especially in Greece.
The phrase "abusers of themselves with mankind", most scholars agree, refers to prostitutes.
It is a sad thing that in our time homosexuality has been so closely linked to weakness, feminine behavior, perversion and so on, but that is the fault of society. The Bible does not make such a connection. In the past being gay was acceptable and looked upon as a decent, normal thing. Today that isn't the case. We have to ask ourselves which society is the correct one - the one that has condemned an innocent group of people for hundreds of years or the one that defended all its citizens, regardless of their personal lives, for thousands of years? There can be no mistake, the anti-gay feeling in modern times, the false teachings of some religious extremists that led to such a feeling - that is wrong, abnormal and goes against the will of God and the very nature of humanity.
Some ask, “if one is born gay and another is born predisposed to becoming an alcoholic, does that mean he should be a drunk?” I ask if you're born straight and another born to drinking, does that mean he should be a drunk? The answer is obvious. Alcoholism goes against biology, it wrecks the body, and it goes against morality because it causes physical and mental harm. Homosexuality causes no such harm; it hurts no one and is even mirrored in the animal kingdom in hundreds of different species. If God made all things then why would he make animals, who are documented in their same-sex behavior (and some exclusively gay) and yet contradict himself by making humans to be against homosexuality but allow many to be born that way? It makes no sense.
You might say that being gay is harmful because of the rates of depression and suicide among homosexuals (namely youths), however the problem isn't that they're gay. The problem is that their families, their country, say they are gross, evil, against God. Being told you're disgusting would make anyone depressed, and having your family and church turn away from you would make anyone think of suicide. It saddens me greatly to think that the most important group of people, our most beautiful resource, children, would be subjected to centuries worth of baseless hate and discrimination just because they have questions, just because they may have acknowledged their sexuality as they were made.
The bottom line is that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and there is no real reason why you cannot be both homosexual and a Christian. If you are gay you were made that way and God doesn't make mistakes. The problem isn't with you, but with those who would act foolishly and hatefully and try to hurt you because of their ignorance, closed mindedness and hate. God is about love and accepts all people who accept him, there is no need for false guilt. Mankind has used the Bible as an excuse for harmful activities (like slavery) from the moment it came to being. Let us hope that after reading the facts the use of scripture for wrongful discrimination against gays and others will cease.
In closing I want to stress that the fault is not that of the faith or the actual words of God but lies with the men and women who try to cause evil. You may have experienced a lot of discrimination at the hands of those who profess to be Christian, but not all Christians are that way. The following is a list of groups/denominations which have a positive message or policy toward homosexuals:
-Generally, the Anglican Church of North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, hold the view that there are no grounds to condemn homosexuality as sinful based on the Bible.
-The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the largest Lutheran church body in the United States, has a current policy which states that persons who are homosexual in their self-understanding are allowed to be ordained, but must maintain a lifestyle abstinent of sexual relations. Outside of ordination the policy states that GLBT individuals are welcome and encouraged to become members and participate in the life of the congregation.
-The Metropolitan Community Church is an international fellowship of Christian congregations. It is considered by many to be a full mainline denomination or communion. Currently there are 300 member congregations in 22 countries and the Fellowship has a specific outreach to GLBT communities. The acceptance of homosexuality is an important part of its theology.
-The Presbyterian Church (United States) is the largest U.S. Presbyterian body. Gays are welcome to become members of the church.
-Quakers, the Friends General Conference, strongly support equal rights for homosexuals.
-The United Church of Christ, In July, 2005, the 25th General Synod encouraged congregations to adopt wedding policies that do not discriminate based on the gender of the couple and to support legislation allowing homosexual marriage.
If you would like to copy this to another blog, website, send it in an email or to your friends please feel free to. I encourage it.
--Jacob Bogle, 03/26/2010
Revised 1/24/2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)