Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Here are three thrown at me, and I am sure there is no need to post any thrown at others.

"Please learn proper English gentlemen it will alleviate all this meaningless argument."

"Do you even know how to disect a sentence?"

"Do you at least understand that?"

All these from one who is trying to impress us with his gramatical bona fides, which he actually lacks.

Lol, well like I said they were facts.

I had previously read your post, and it lacks any cohesion to the facts or your previous posts. The definition you chose to use (An established church), is not indicative of a place or location as you previously asserted. Examples of established churches within the context of the definition and the FA are the Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, or the Methodist Church, not the Riley Street Baptist Church, or the Kelvin Street Methodist Church.

Well again thats your opinion. And it would be better if you would actually read my posts instead of assuming. Because if you would have read them you would have known that the word establishment in its context in the constitution is refered to as a religious establishment which in the dictionary can only have one meaning which is place or doctrine. Now God isnt either one is He? Mabe in your opinion but in His word he defines Himself as a spirit that is all knowing and is all powerful, not a doctrine or a place.

Now let me ask you something. Is God IYO a place, doctrine, person, or spirit?

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Lol, well like I said they were facts.

Your first comment is a suggestive opinion. One which is of no factual value as it contains no facts, and it's perceived intent was not an introduction of any facts, but rather to belittle.

Questions sometimes may sometimes contain facts, but in the two questions you asked, are no facts.

SKILMATIC said:
Well again thats your opinion. And it would be better if you would actually read my posts instead of assuming. Because if you would have read them you would have known that the word establishment in its context in the constitution is referred to as a religious establishment which in the dictionary can only have one meaning which is place or doctrine. Now God isn't either one is He? Mabe in your opinion but in His word he defines Himself as a spirit that is all knowing and is all powerful, not a doctrine or a place.

What assumption are you referring to?

Look at it this way. If contrary to the FA, Congress passed a bill, and it became law, that created the church of doobie, and all would worship doobie, they would have established a religion, without ever mentioning a place. They could also build places, or use existing places, but no place was originally established, a religion was.

SKILMATIC said:
Now let me ask you something. Is God IYO a place, doctrine, person, or spirit?

My opinion of what God is, is not relevant to the discussion of what was intended by the framers of the FA.

TimmyBoy · Sep 27, 2005

I don't think school kids should be made to pledge allegiance to the state. School kids should be taught to think for themselves rather than be indoctrinated and brainwashed in our schools. Nobody should pledge themselves to a state. Everybody should think for themselves and be their own person. The state does not give any allegiance to you, the individual.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

TimmyBoy said:
I don't think school kids should be made to pledge allegiance to the state. School kids should be taught to think for themselves rather than be indoctrinated and brainwashed in our schools. Nobody should pledge themselves to a state. Everybody should think for themselves and be their own person. The state does not give any allegiance to you, the individual.

I agree with that.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Your first comment is a suggestive opinion. One which is of no factual value as it contains no facts, and it's perceived intent was not an introduction of any facts, but rather to belittle.

Questions sometimes may sometimes contain facts, but in the two questions you asked, are no facts.

No it wasnt. EVerytime I had included facts they couldnt understand them so which is true to those statements. The when I dissected the sentence in the constitution for them they still couldnt get it so again my comments were facts. In nowhere in the constitution does it refer to God so stop trying to argue that it does becasue its serioualy getting rediculous. I already had this argument about 20times in this thread. Just read it.

What assumption are you referring to?

:lol: :rofl Nevermind dude. You are making me laugh hysterically. I like that.

Look at it this way. If contrary to the FA, Congress passed a bill, and it became law, that created the church of doobie, and all would worship doobie, they would have established a religion, without ever mentioning a place. They could also build places, or use existing places, but no place was originally established, a religion was.

What in the sam hill are you talking about? Is this have to do with anything of what we are talking about? The only doobie I know is a joint or the band back in the 70's. Mabe if you could explain this analogy better?
Honestly

My opinion of what God is, is not relevant to the discussion of what was intended by the framers of the FA.

Right and neither is your interpretation either. And vice versa. What really matters is what the majority of people want. We are the governemnt not the politiicans(well at least thats how it should be and the fore fathers wanted that as well). If the majority of the American people want the pledge to be mandatory with the phrase then it will be constitutional casue they made it constitutional and vice versa. I am just arguing with what the majority will say. And in a democracy thats all that matters. I dont quite think the majority is on your side other than a handful of people and the ACLU of course.

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
I agree with that.

As do I! My father was one of many school kids kicked out of school in the late 1930's, because of their refusal to recite the pledge due to their religion. Forced patriotism isn't real patriotism, and it's only value is in showing what control government has over the citizens.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

C.J. said:
As do I! My father was one of many school kids kicked out of school in the late 1930's, because of their refusal to recite the pledge due to their religion. Forced patriotism isn't real patriotism, and it's only value is in showing what control government has over the citizens.

Yep I find it repulsive to force anything on anyone. Unless if its having 5EX with a virgin :rofl :lol: Ok that was a joke go ahead and laugh.

Yes back in the revolutionary war the patriots didnt enforce anything upon the loyalists and we still won a decisive battle.

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
No it wasnt. EVerytime I had included facts they couldnt understand them so which is true to those statements. The when I dissected the sentence in the constitution for them they still couldnt get it so again my comments were facts.

Well excuse me, I am not "they" and when you post to me and comment on they, I have no way of knowing this if you don't tell me.

SKILMATIC said:
In nowhere in the constitution does it refer to God so stop trying to argue that it does becasue its serioualy getting rediculous. I already had this argument about 20times in this thread. Just read it.

There you go again, creating false positions and wanting me to defend them. I haven't mentioned God. Perhaps you are confused.

SKILMATIC said:
:lol: :rofl Nevermind dude. You are making me laugh hysterically. I like that.

What, couldn't find an assumption?

SKILMATIC said:
What in the sam hill are you talking about? Is this have to do with anything of what we are talking about?

Real easy for someone so commanding of the english language. Just remove doobie and insert the name of the god of your choice. My analogy explains itself very well.

SKILMATIC said:
The only doobie I know is a joint or the band back in the 70's.

Is this the assumption I supposedly made?:2razz:

SKILMATIC said:
What really matters is what the majority of people want. We are the governemnt not the politiicans(well at least thats how it should be and the fore fathers wanted that as well).

My poor misguided friend. First off, this is not a democracy we live in, and secondly, if it is decided by the SCOTUS that the phrase "under God" is covered under the FA, then what the majority wants will be damned. What the "fore fathers" wanted (One of the things they wanted)," was for "rights" not to be at the whim of the majority.

SKILMATIC said:
If the majority of the American people want the pledge to be mandatory with the phrase then it will be constitutional casue they made it constitutional and vice versa.

What the majority wants and does not want has no bearing on the constitutionality of anything.

SKILMATIC said:
I am just arguing with what the majority will say. And in a democracy thats all that matters. I dont quite think the majority is on your side other than a handful of people and the ACLU of course.

Again, we do not have a democracy, and the majority is not all that matters, in fact the framers saw the danger of "rights" falling to the majority, or being decided by the majority and they rejected democracy. Whether the majority is on my side or not is irrelevant, and you seem so confused that I doubt if you even know what "my side" is. Of course you could assign me a position or side to defend, such as you have done at least twice now.

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

Well excuse me, I am not "they" and when you post to me and comment on they, I have no way of knowing this if you don't tell me.

Ok fair enough

There you go again, creating false positions and wanting me to defend them. I haven't mentioned God. Perhaps you are confused

Ok fair enough

What, couldn't find an assumption?

Well unless if you can explain yourself alittle more decisively mabe I wont be able to assume. But this is what your leading me to assume under inacurate posts. Sorry my mistake if you already agree with that.

Real easy for someone so commanding of the english language. Just remove doobie and insert the name of the god of your choice. My analogy explains itself very well.

I still dont understand you here buddy. :lol:

My poor misguided friend. First off, this is not a democracy we live in, and secondly, if it is decided by the SCOTUS that the phrase "under God" is covered under the FA, then what the majority wants will be damned. What the "fore fathers" wanted (One of the things they wanted)," was for "rights" not to be at the whim of the majority.

See this is where it gets sticky casue they also wanted the people to be heard as well. So thats where the constitution has loop holes. You catch my drift?

What the majority wants and does not want has no bearing on the constitutionality of anything.

Yes it does. We the people have the right to instill anything we want if the vote is there.

AlbqOwl · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Yes it does. We the people have the right to instill anything we want if the vote is there.

This is the heart of this entire debate. The Founders wrote into the Constitution protections of inalienable rights that they believed to be God given (ergo the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge) and thus are not to be messed with by anybody, not even the Supreme Court. The protections they wrote into the Constitution ensure that even a majority cannot override those inalienable rights. If they attempt to do so by amendment or any other means, the Constitution will fail and so will the Republic it designs and defends.

The Founders were also first and foremost concerned that the tyranny of government never be manifested in this country and that is what the First Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights is all about. Where no individual inalienable right is involved, it is the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, that shall prevail.

That is why I have said all along that the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion nor does it violate anybody's inalienable rights in any way, and thus it is entirely consitutional and is present because a majority of people want it to be there. That majority represents the will of the people that is also constitutionally protected.

At such time as a majority of people object to its being there, it will be gone. That's the way democractic principles structured within a Republic should work and in fact do work.

On the next issue like this, those who object to the Pledge may be on the side of the majority; and I guarantee you they'll have no problem with the majority will prevailing then. :smile:

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Yes it does. We the people have the right to instill anything we want if the vote is there.

No such right exists. The only vote the Constitution gives us is the vote to elect Representatives to the House of Representatives.

The Seventeenth Amendment gave us the vote for Senators.

Amendments are the only way of instilling "anything we want," and that's the domain of state legislatures, which at their will can put it to vote, but we have no "right" to vote on them included in the Constitution.

Other than an amendment vote allowed by a state, any vote which instill's "anything we want" and attempts to remove a "right," would be unconstitutional and within the powers of the courts.

C.J. · Sep 27, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
That is why I have said all along that the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion nor does it violate anybody's inalienable rights in any way, and thus it is entirely consitutional and is present because a majority of people want it to be there. That majority represents the will of the people that is also constitutionally protected.

I also believe that "the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion but I am concerned that it would violate everyone's inalienable rights "if" one were required to pledge, whether or not the "under God" phrase is included or not. If in a particular group everyone could make the choice, I would have no problem, but if just one abstains, I believe the courts to be ridiculous enough to see a rights violation because the exposure violated their right to privacy, or some such nonsense.

BTW, Very good post

SKILMATIC · Sep 27, 2005

No such right exists. The only vote the Constitution gives us is the vote to elect Representatives to the House of Representatives.

You are so wrong on this it isnt funny. We the people have the right to instill anyhting and vote on propositions. There could be a propostion to be voted on a loca level on this which will prolly end up hapening. We just dont vote on representantives. What country do you live in? We vote for just about every and anybody in gov. Except technically the Pres. Yes the reps represent us but we stil vote for everyone from mayor to governor. That is a fact too.

This is the heart of this entire debate. The Founders wrote into the Constitution protections of inalienable rights that they believed to be God given (ergo the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge) and thus are not to be messed with by anybody, not even the Supreme Court. The protections they wrote into the Constitution ensure that even a majority cannot override those inalienable rights. If they attempt to do so by amendment or any other means, the Constitution will fail and so will the Republic it designs and defends.

The Founders were also first and foremost concerned that the tyranny of government never be manifested in this country and that is what the First Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights is all about. Where no individual inalienable right is involved, it is the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, that shall prevail.

That is why I have said all along that the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion nor does it violate anybody's inalienable rights in any way, and thus it is entirely consitutional and is present because a majority of people want it to be there. That majority represents the will of the people that is also constitutionally protected.

At such time as a majority of people object to its being there, it will be gone. That's the way democractic principles structured within a Republic should work and in fact do work.

On the next issue like this, those who object to the Pledge may be on the side of the majority; and I guarantee you they'll have no problem with the majority will prevailing then.

Did you get that CJ?

C.J. · Sep 28, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
You are so wrong on this it isnt funny. We the people have the right to instill anyhting and vote on propositions. There could be a propostion to be voted on a loca level on this which will prolly end up hapening. We just dont vote on representantives. What country do you live in? We vote for just about every and anybody in gov. Except technically the Pres. Yes the reps represent us but we stil vote for everyone from mayor to governor. That is a fact too.

Still confused??? Read my post again, the government through the constitution and an amendment gives you the vote for certain things (Reps and Senators). Unless you believe the government is the benefactor of rights, then you are mistaken. Again on a local level, the state or local jurisdiction gives you the vote, and again unless you believe the state or local jurisdiction is the benefactor of rights, then you are again mistaken. In the case of the Pres, it is the state legislatures responsibility to select electors, in a manner of their choosing, and I believe now all have given their citizens the vote as their manner of selection. Constitutionally any state legislature can rescind this decision and select another manner. This doesn't sound like a right, because it isn't one.

Yes, you can vote on initiatives and propositions, not as a right, but as a power given you by a state or local jurisdiction, but all that are passed are subject to court problems if they violate someone's rights.

I'll give you another simple analogy. Suppose voters in a city passed a proposition to force all blacks to move to the south side of town, and wear bells when out after dark, because they are hard to see. Just because it's what the majority wants, will it be allow by the courts to stand? Will it be constitutional because it's what the majority want?

SKILMATIC said:
We vote for just about every and anybody in gov.

I didn't suggest we did not vote, just that it's not a right. There is a difference.

SKILMATIC said:
Did you get that CJ?

Sure I did, but I believe you missed it, especially; "The protections they wrote into the Constitution ensure that even a majority cannot override those inalienable rights."

That kinda blows up your premise that "We the people have the right to instill anyhting and vote on propositions."

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

Moderate said:
Has anyone even been in a class room in the last 15 years?!

Most students say the pledge out of habit. They don't car what it says, it's just repititious.

I'm an athiest and I simply omited that part when I said the plegde and I graduated in 2000.

There are more important issues than this why are we waisting time?!

Whether there are more important issues or not is not the question...the case is before the court, so it's going to be decided one way or the other.

Under god should be removed from the pledge.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
Please explain why under the 14th it is unconstitutional under federal pretences?

Do you know what the 14th does?

The equal protection clause extends the bill of rights to state and local governments.

Therefore, the prohibition on federal establishment of religion was extended to state and local municipalities.

Because of that, any gov't, be it federal or local school board, that mandates the recitation of the pledge is acting unconstitutionally.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

TimmyBoy said:
I don't think school kids should be made to pledge allegiance to the state. School kids should be taught to think for themselves rather than be indoctrinated and brainwashed in our schools. Nobody should pledge themselves to a state. Everybody should think for themselves and be their own person. The state does not give any allegiance to you, the individual.

Government has every right to mandate a coercive secular declaration of allegience in public schools, as it funds them. However, it cannot, per the Constitution, bring religion into that declaration.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
This is the heart of this entire debate. The Founders wrote into the Constitution protections of inalienable rights that they believed to be God given (ergo the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge) and thus are not to be messed with by anybody, not even the Supreme Court. The protections they wrote into the Constitution ensure that even a majority cannot override those inalienable rights. If they attempt to do so by amendment or any other means, the Constitution will fail and so will the Republic it designs and defends.

The Founders were also first and foremost concerned that the tyranny of government never be manifested in this country and that is what the First Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights is all about. Where no individual inalienable right is involved, it is the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives, that shall prevail.

That is why I have said all along that the phrase 'under God' neither establishes a religion nor does it violate anybody's inalienable rights in any way, and thus it is entirely consitutional and is present because a majority of people want it to be there. That majority represents the will of the people that is also constitutionally protected.

At such time as a majority of people object to its being there, it will be gone. That's the way democractic principles structured within a Republic should work and in fact do work.

On the next issue like this, those who object to the Pledge may be on the side of the majority; and I guarantee you they'll have no problem with the majority will prevailing then. :smile:

First off, you do know that "under god" was added in 1953 to combat secular communism, right?

Secondly, your opinion that "under god" does not violate the Establishment Clause is contradicted by numerous Supreme Court cases which argue otherwise.

And also, for the record, whether or not something is democratically supported has no bearing on its constitutionality. Every single person in this country could want a prayer to be recited in school, and it would still be unconstitutional.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

For the record, you do all know that this is not a democracy, correct?

We live in a republic, and the rules governing it are far from being as simple as majority rule.

And, for the record, the Supremes have held over and over again that whether or not the individual recitation of something is mandated, if it is mandated by any gov (fed, state, or local) that something be recited in a public classroom, that that recitation has a coercive effect on the pupils, and that if anything in that recitation is unconstitutional, no town vote, city law, or national legislation can make it constitutional.

So the whole idea of towns voting on this issue is preposterous.

AlbqOwl · Sep 28, 2005

RightatNYU said:
First off, you do know that "under god" was added in 1953 to combat secular communism, right?

Why it was added is irrelevent. What it is and how it is presented is relevent. It is not presented as anything other than symbolic of the religious heritage of the nation.

Secondly, your opinion that "under god" does not violate the Establishment Clause is contradicted by numerous Supreme Court cases which argue otherwise.

I would have to see the 'numerous Supreme Court cases' dealing with this specific issue to make such a judgment. I haven't seen any. I am hoping for a Court to hear this case when it comes up again to apply common sense to any conclusion. Common sense says that 'under God' is no establishment of religion, favors no religion in particular, and violates nobody's inalienable or civil rights.

And also, for the record, whether or not something is democratically supported has no bearing on its constitutionality. Every single person in this country could want a prayer to be recited in school, and it would still be unconstitutional.

No, reciting a prayer in school is not unconstitutional. In fact the Constitution via the First Amendment is explicit in its implication that anyone can recite a prayer in any place that is appropriate to do so. For a school to mandate or prescribe prayer would be unconstitutional. I also look forward to a Court who will take this reasonable approach as Courts of a few decades ago did.

AlbqOwl · Sep 28, 2005

RightatNYU said:
For the record, you do all know that this is not a democracy, correct?

We live in a republic, and the rules governing it are far from being as simple as majority rule.

If you had actually read my post, you would know that I am quite aware that we live in a republic with a representative government. That representative government constitutes the majority or minority opinion of the people whether at the federal or local level. If the majority votes for a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day, that should stand. If the majority vote to keep 'under God' in the Pledge, that should stand.

And, for the record, the Supremes have held over and over again that whether or not the individual recitation of something is mandated, if it is mandated by any gov (fed, state, or local) that something be recited in a public classroom, that that recitation has a coercive effect on the pupils, and that if anything in that recitation is unconstitutional, no town vote, city law, or national legislation can make it constitutional.

There is nothing coercive about a patriotic Pledge that no person, child or adult, is required to say and for which there is no consequence or reward for saying or not saying it. That some do not like it is irrelevent. The child whose faith is literal Creationism is nevertheless subjected to a mandatory study of Darwin and may feel quite coerced, but it is perfectly legal that he be subjected to the same material everybody else is. How he feels about it, howver, is irrelevent because there is no requirement to believe it.

So the whole idea of towns voting on this issue is preposterous.

The idea that the will of the people re this issue should not prevail is preposterous.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Sep 28, 2005

SKILMATIC said:
What really matters is what the majority of people want. We are the governemnt not the politiicans(well at least thats how it should be and the fore fathers wanted that as well). If the majority of the American people want the pledge to be mandatory with the phrase then it will be constitutional casue they made it constitutional and vice versa. I am just arguing with what the majority will say. And in a democracy thats all that matters. I dont quite think the majority is on your side other than a handful of people and the ACLU of course.

No. The Bill of Rights was written solely with the majority in mind. It's a shopping list of things the majority cannot do.

The majority cannot use the power of government to establish a religion.
The majority cannot use the power of government to shut down a newpaper.
The majority cannot use the power of government to stop the assembly of people.
The majority cannot use the power of government to deny others the ownership of guns.
The majority cannot use the power of government to force private citizens to house troops.
The majority cannot use the power of government to force citizens to incriminate themselves.

Lots and lots of things the majority can't do. That includes defining a pledge of allegiance that makes a religious claim.

At best, the Pledge of Allegiance should be a custom, not a ritual defined by law, as it is now.

Scardy · Sep 28, 2005

Why should "Under God" be stricken?
does it really matter in the long run? God is such a general term.
If it were "Under Jesus" I'd be against it, but god is a term that can be used in about any religion. If you're atheistic, well, I was one too, and I'd just skip "Under God". It's really silly to fight over what amounts to a small thing.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

AlbqOwl said:
If you had actually read my post, you would know that I am quite aware that we live in a republic with a representative government. That representative government constitutes the majority or minority opinion of the people whether at the federal or local level. If the majority votes for a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day, that should stand. If the majority vote to keep 'under God' in the Pledge, that should stand.

Fortunately, the court disagrees with you.

"Our Founders were no more willing to let the content of their prayers and their privilege of praying whenever they pleased be influenced by the ballot box than they were to let these vital matters of personal conscience depend on the succession of monarchs." - Justice Black, majority opinion, Engel v. Vitale

"Majority vote" is NOT a license to override the protections of the constitution.

There is nothing coercive about a patriotic Pledge that no person, child or adult, is required to say and for which there is no consequence or reward for saying or not saying it. That some do not like it is irrelevent. The child whose faith is literal Creationism is nevertheless subjected to a mandatory study of Darwin and may feel quite coerced, but it is perfectly legal that he be subjected to the same material everybody else is. How he feels about it, howver, is irrelevent because there is no requirement to believe it.

Again, the court disagrees with you:

"Neither the fact that the prayer may be denominationally neutral nor the fact that its observance on the part of the students is voluntary can serve to free it from the limitations of the Establishment Clause, as it might from the Free Exercise Clause, of the First Amendment, both of which are operative against the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Engel v. Vitale

The court held that whether or not students were individually required to recite it, the fact that the local gov. mandated that the school recite it had an unconstitutional, coercive effect on the students.

In addition:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to each of practice religion."

Reynolds v. Supra

As defined by the courts, any invocation of the word "God" in the form of an honorary label in the public schools is a religious activity. As Engel v. Vitale stated, the fact that teachers are required to recite this prayer is an instance of tax monies being levied to support religion.

The idea that the will of the people re this issue should not prevail is preposterous.

The idea that the will of the people should be superior to the Constitution is even more preposterous.

RightinNYC · Sep 28, 2005

Scardy said:
Why should "Under God" be stricken?
does it really matter in the long run? God is such a general term.
If it were "Under Jesus" I'd be against it, but god is a term that can be used in about any religion. If you're atheistic, well, I was one too, and I'd just skip "Under God". It's really silly to fight over what amounts to a small thing.

Would the pledge be any worse if it did not contain "Under God?" If not, then why fight so hard to keep it in, despite the unconstitutionality?

Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Do you believe that the phrase "Under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Yes

No

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Active member

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

Girthless

New member

Girthless

Girthless