44 COMMENTS

  1. I don’t know why this was posted, unless to give the others on the panel, particularly Naajid Nawaz a voice. Richard must have spoken ten words, and that was it. His point, that young westerners are turning away from religion while young Muslims are becoming more religious, didn’t seem to resonate in the overall conversation. Perhaps because there were too many people at the table.

    Interesting that Al Sharpton, the Reverend-clown, had not a single word to say during the religion-bashing.

    • In reply to #1 by justinesaracen:

      I don’t know why this was posted, unless to give the others on the panel, particularly Naajid Nawaz a voice. Richard must have spoken ten words, and that was it. His point, that young westerners are turning away from religion while young Muslims are becoming more religious, didn’t seem to resonate i…

      I’ll soon watch the episode proper; legal online streaming options exist only for overtime, in which RD is quiet, but I bet he said a lot in the episode itself. I urge everyone to find some way to watch it.

      • In reply to #7 by Jos Gibbons:

        In reply to #1 by justinesaracen:

        I’ll soon watch the episode proper; legal online streaming options exist only for overtime, in which RD is quiet, but I bet he said a lot in the episode itself. I urge everyone to find some way to watch it.

        Podcast feed (audio) http://www.hbo.com/podcasts/billmaher/podcast.xml
        Usually takes a couple of days and you do miss some of the visual jokes but it is free without the hassle of trying to find it elsewhere.

    • In reply to #1 by justinesaracen:

      I don’t know why this was posted, unless to give the others on the panel, particularly Naajid Nawaz a voice. Richard must have spoken ten words, and that was it.

      Gotta sell those books!

    • And why would it be wrong to give these people a voice? Do you think this site’s only purpose is to promote Richard Dawkins? I think this was an interesting discussion on religion. I think Maajid Nawaz presented some interesting arguments here. In reply to #1 by justinesaracen:

      I don’t know why this was posted, unless to give the others on the panel, particularly Naajid Nawaz a voice. Richard must have spoken ten words, and that was it. His point, that young westerners are turning away from religion while young Muslims are becoming more religious, didn’t seem to resonate i…

  2. To blame politics more than religion for religious “extremism” is a little bit like saying that if a man kills his wife with a baseball bat, the blame must largely be placed on the wife for annoying him.

    • In reply to #2 by secularjew:

      To blame politics more than religion for religious “extremism” is a little bit like saying that if a man kills his wife with a baseball bat, the blame must largely be placed on the wife for annoying him.

      Sure it’s not the bat since it was designed for hitting?

      • In reply to #4 by godsbuster:
        >

        Sure it’s not the bat since it was designed for hitting?

        Good point. The blame must be extended to the manufacturers of baseball bats, and, of course, to the American public, a good percentage of which enjoys playing and following baseball, thus making baseball bats a necessity. So once again, it all comes down to the evils of American policies.

    • In reply to #2 by secularjew:

      To blame politics more than religion for religious “extremism” is a little bit like saying that if a man kills his wife with a baseball bat, the blame must largely be placed on the wife for annoying him.

      The politics are always behind the religious extremism. The religion is a powerful tool used in centuries to justify any invasion no matter what in the name of what and who they were going in war for, as Crusades and so on.

      • In reply to #18 by Zana9:

        The politics are always behind the religious extremism.

        I think you have it the other way around. Religious extremism is often behind politics. Politics are a means to an end, but religious ideologies (and irrationally embraced secular ideologies) are often behind the desired end.

    • That analogy makes absolutely no sense… In reply to #2 by secularjew:

      To blame politics more than religion for religious “extremism” is a little bit like saying that if a man kills his wife with a baseball bat, the blame must largely be placed on the wife for annoying him.

  3. I think that Maajid Nawaz is naïve and fails to see the big picture when he asserts that current terrorist movements are only a recent phenomenon, and not the direct product of religion. I would consider the Crusades a terrorist movement. And the Inquisition. And witch burnings. And the Moors invading Spain in 711. Etc., etc. Imposing religious beliefs on others through intimidation, threats, and violence is nothing new, and until such beliefs are eradictated, terrorism in one form or another –be it physical or psychological– will continue.

    • In reply to #3 by yanquetino:

      I would consider the Crusades a terrorist movement. And the Inquisition. And witch burnings.

      Terrorism : killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.
      ~ Caleb Carr 1955-08-02, military historian

      Oddly, the Crusades by that definition were not terrorism. The Christians did not want to convert the Muslims, just kill them.
      The Inquisition was not terrorism by that definition because they wanted to change religious affiliation, not political. By that definition, America is probably the largest terrorist nation on earth. Consider their actions in Latin America and the middle east.

      There are a number of other definitions of terrorism. People tend to use the word today for anyone they don’t like. In some people’s minds, people holding a protest march are terrorists, presumably on the grounds they are terrified of what the world would be like if the protestors got their way.

      • In reply to #5 by Roedy:

        Really? Huh. And why did the Crusaders want to kill the Muslims, not convert them? Seems to me that the 9/11 hijackers didn’t want to convert the people in the twin towers either –just kill them. And the Inquisitors didn’t view those protestant heretics as dangerous and threatening to the Catholic Church’s political power in Europe and elsewhere? Terrorism attempts to invoke terror in an “outgroup,” and most certainly can be religiously motivated if that “outgroup” doesn’t share those one-and-only-true beliefs. My two-pence worth, anyway.

      • Why would it matter whether it is politically or religiously motivated ?
        I would think that terrorism is defined by the way it is perpetrated ( using terror ) , not so much by what it is motivated by.

        Merriam-Webster defines it as :
        “The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”

        In that sense, the Inquisition would have been a form of terrorism.

        In reply to #5 by Roedy:

        In reply to #3 by yanquetino:

        I would consider the Crusades a terrorist movement. And the Inquisition. And witch burnings.

        Terrorism : killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.
        ~ Caleb Carr 1955-08-02, military historian

        Oddly, the Crusades by that definition were…

      • I think Maajid meant it in a different sense : terrorism as a way of pushing the islamist agenda.
        In another video, he describes 3 types of islamist groups :

        • terrorists : they act by specifically targeting civilians, using ‘terror’ to silence opposition, force governments to act out of fear, etc…
        • revolutionaries : they try to incite military coups to overthrow governments, to then install a government to their liking.
        • democratic ( I forgot the name ) : they try to achieve their goals through democratic means, get elected ,etc…

        They ultimately have the same goal though.

        Terrorism is very recent, because it requires live mass media coverage to have impact, and that’s a very recent phenomenon.

        In reply to #5 by Roedy:

        In reply to #3 by yanquetino:

        I would consider the Crusades a terrorist movement. And the Inquisition. And witch burnings.

        Terrorism : killing civilians with the intent of changing their political affiliation.
        ~ Caleb Carr 1955-08-02, military historian

        Oddly, the Crusades by that definition were…

    • How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Second, it’s a fact that Muslim terrorism as part of jihad against the western world it is mainly a modern phenomenon. Yes, there has always been religious extremists that has terrorized people around them but that is beside the point. Nawad was talking about modern Islamic terrorism. Third, he never said that the terrorists aren’t religiously motivated. His point is that older Muslims usually have a quite different view of jihad and acts of terrorism in the name of Islam.

      I don’t understand why so many atheists just can’t accept the fact that just because some religious extremists are motivated by religion to do harm, many others read the same scriptures in a whole different way. Like I said, this weird “no true Scotsman” mentality that is in my opinion very destructive. No I’m not talking about accommodationism or respecting religious beliefs. I’m just amazed by this irrational mentality that many atheists seem to hold. I think we should encourage moderate beliefs. Not because we think they are true or necessarily even respect them. But, because they are less harmful. This mentality that if you are a Muslim you have to accept terrorism, misogyny, etc… because that’s what the quran says is in my opinion insanity. Yes, the quran is in many ways an awful book. So is the bible. Still, I applaude Christians who distance themselves from the horrors of the bible. I don’t care if the cherry-pick as long as they cherry-pick the good parts. That is not to say that we shouldn’t criticize religious beliefs since they are fundamentally false and unsupported by evidence. But, that does not mean that you can’t differentiate between more and less harmful religious beliefs. And as said, I think we should applaude the people who choose less harmful beliefs instead of demanding that they either accept all the atrocities ever done in the name of their religion or abandon their faith all together. That sounds very counter-productive and naive to me. In reply to #3 by yanquetino:

      I think that Maajid Nawaz is naïve and fails to see the big picture when he asserts that current terrorist movements are only a recent phenomenon, and not the direct product of religion. I would consider the Crusades a terrorist movement. And the Inquisition. And witch burnings. And the Moors invadi…

      • In reply to #24 by Nunbeliever:

        How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Second, it’s a fact that Muslim terrorism as part…

        WHAT…? I never said any of that. I simply observed that terrorism can be a direct product of religion, the terrorists’ own brand of religion. I never painted them with a broad brush of all Islam or all Muslims. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?

        • I was responding to your statement where I think you misrepresented Nawaz. He never said that terrorism can’t be religiously motivated. You blamed him for being naive and missing the bigger picture. What bigger picture? That there will always be religious terrorism? That as long as there are Muslims we’ll have terrorists? Well, not necessarily. Or then you would have to define terrorism in such a vague way that it really is a meaningless discussion. We barely have Christian terrorists these days. At least not terrorists that are directly motivated by religion. Why is Islam any different. Yes, Islam is a much more conservative religion. Yes, extremists are motivated by Islamic scriptures to do harm. But, to say that this will always be the case. is absurd in my opinion. Or as said, then you would have to redefine terrorism in quite an extensive way. He was explicitly talking about Islamic terrorism as we see it today. And that this is a new phenomenon. You seem to use his statements as a spring board for your own totally unrelated discussion about the evils of religion and religious intimidation. That’s called putting words into someone else’s mouth. In reply to #27 by yanquetino:

          In reply to #24 by Nunbeliever:

          How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Second, it’s a fa…

          • In reply to #28 by Nunbeliever:

            I was responding to your statement where I think you misrepresented Nawaz. He never said that terrorism can’t be religiously motivated. You blamed him for being naive and missing the bigger picture. What bigger picture? That there will always be religious terrorism? That as long as there are Muslims…

            Whatever…! You’re trying to put words in my mouth again.

            It never ceases to amaze me. A person offers a spontaneous comment in response to an article, a video clip, a news item that the Richard Dawkins Foundation posts, and inevitably someone else has to jump in to refute that person, find faults with the comment, criticize and lecture –rather than also comment on the post. From all your other retorts, you evidentally are on a mission to instruct everybody here. Well… go for it, knock yourself out, soak in it until your fingers are all pruney. I might as well still be in my old cult, hearing that there is something “wrong” with me if I don’t see the Emperor’s New Clothes.

            I’m outta here. And will not reply again.

          • This is a discussion forum. What do you expect? It’s nothing personal. But go ahead and play the martyr’s card if you like to… In reply to #30 by yanquetino:

            In reply to #28 by Nunbeliever:

            I was responding to your statement where I think you misrepresented Nawaz. He never said that terrorism can’t be religiously motivated. You blamed him for being naive and missing the bigger picture. What bigger picture? That there will always be religious terrorism?…

      • In reply to #24 by Nunbeliever:

        How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

        The people most guilty of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy are those religious moderates who can’t seem to accept that religious extremists are the products of the same faith and their religious views are just as legitimate (if not more so) as the views of the moderates. The moderate argument is basically, “You’ve got it all wrong. That’s not what God meant.” And the fundamentalists say, “Oh, yes, he did. And here’s the verse we’re basing this on.” The problem with the moderate position (and by the way, I am all for helping moderate voices as much as we can, and I consider Maajid Nawaz to be a genuine hero) is that it can often shield extremism from proper criticism. Just look at Michael Moore squirming on the Bill Maher show as if accepting criticism of Islam (by far the most violent and repressive religion on earth at this time) is synonymous with bigotry towards Muslims. Of course, the other reason that religious moderates squirm and get defensive is because the best argument against the faith of extremists is the same argument against their own.

        • Yes, I fully acknowledge that moderate believers might give shelter to religious extremists by refusing to connect the dots and admit that religious beliefs (of people who use the same religious label as they do) can motivate terrorism and other destructive deeds. But, that does not mean that people who call themselves rational should use the same logical fallacies and claim that certain religions always lead to violence and destructive behaviors.

          Personally I’m not interested in defining what is “true” Christianity or “true” Islam. I’m interested in promoting beliefs that lead to as little harm as possible. And hence, I don’t see the point of demanding that believers either embrace all the horrors done in the name of their religion or give up their faith entirely. A moderate believer is in my opinion always better than an extremist. Even, if they might give shelter to extremists.Of course I think it would be better if religious people would abandon their faith. At the same time I realize that a moderate believer, as said, is better than an extremist and I also realize that religious moderates are in a much better position to deal with extremists than atheists are. Simply because they speak the same language. In fact, the people I despise much more than religious moderates are the people who are not believers themselves, but still refuse to see the connection between extreme religious beliefs and destructive behaviors. The whole situation seems very polarized to me. Either you hold the position that true religious beliefs always lead to terrorism or you hold the position that true religious beliefs never lead to terrorism. Both are logical fallacies. In reply to #29 by secularjew:

          In reply to #24 by Nunbeliever:

          How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.

          The people most…

          • In reply to #33 by Nunbeliever:

            I don’t think anyone here is guilty of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. You, however, may have committed the “Masked Man” fallacy.

      • How could it be a direct product of religion?
        Whether you like it or not, Before there is “The extremist”, there must be the moderate believers. Nobody will do crusades or jihad all of a sudden out of nothing… Nobody…. And If there is, then that person is mentally ill… I can guarantee that. It all grows slowly… Like a disease. Some are becoming malignant, some are staying benign. Do you remember Prof Dawkins’ slogan “Religion, we can find the cure.”

        What makes it dangerous is the “faith” variable. Because in religion, faith gives a virtue for you to believe without the need of proof / evidence. This idea is presented in Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion. Have you read it yet? As soon as the faith variable took over the rational thinking. That’s it, the extremist was born.

        If the analysis above is irrational to you, maybe you should do more research. And maybe read The God Delusion, and maybe try to write your own counter version, see if you can present a better idea with evidence. You can take a look at the recent story about Boston bomber Tsarnaev, how he started. Should I mention more samples how the Extremist start from Moderate believers?

        Well… google it…

        FYI, people do something good not because of religion. Long before there is religion, there are good people who do good things, and bad people who do bad things. Just so let you know that it takes religion for good people to do bad things.

        In reply to #24 by Nunbeliever:

        How could it be a direct product of religion? First, not all Muslims accept terrorism so however you look at it you can’t postulate such a black and white correlation. I think many atheists in this regard actually use the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Second, it’s a fact that Muslim terrorism as part…

        • You are quite new here aren’t you? In reply to #34 by my.logical.argument:

          How could it be a direct product of religion?
          Whether you like it or not, Before there is “The extremist”, there must be the moderate believers. Nobody will do crusades or jihad all of a sudden out of nothing… Nobody…. And If there is, then that person is mentally ill… I can guarantee that. It…

    • In reply to #9 by Quine:

      Most of Richard’s part of the episode is up on YouTube here.

      Thank you Richard for making the distinction that being “militant” is actually being clear. A light went off when you made this comment. I realized that calling someone (me) militant, blunt, or aggressive really is a dishonest way of discounting what someone has to say. Of course you are clear and so is anyone else who tells the facts in a straightforward manner.

  4. In reply to #10 by QuestioningKat:

    In reply to #9 by Quine:

    Most of Richard’s part of the episode is up on YouTube here.

    Thank you Richard for making the distinction that being “militant” is actually being clear. A light went off when you made this comment. I realized that calling someone (me) militant, blunt, or aggressive really is a dishonest way of discounting what someone has to say.

    Reminds me of a great book I just read: Why Everybody (Else) Is a Hypocrite. It’s always my side that is reasonable and the other guys who are militant and unreasonable.

  5. Prof. Dawkins REALLY needs to step up his game and be more aggressive. I mean, Sharpton equated religious extremists with, what I guess he would call, atheist extremists. That’s Richard’s cue to channel his inner Hitch and say something.

    Prof. Dawkins shouldn’t let people talk over him constantly. He never got a word in. English good manners must be left at home when going on a panel of screaming, masochistic, american liberals who feel good by taking the blame for anything that’s ever happened to any muslim person. If I were Maajid Nawaz, I’d be offended by Moore, Sharpton and Plame’s refusal to really hold muslims responsible for anything. It’s like they’re talking to children.

    Anyway, Prof. Dawkins, please be more strident. Whenever you DID say something, you made good points. The point about muslims wanting to kill ex-muslims, and that having nothing to do with american occupation, was a particularly good one.

    • I agree that it was frustrating to watch Richard being talked over, but I don’t think he should leave behind his “good manners” or try to be a dominating voice like Hitch. I’m sure I’m not the only one who noticed that Richard came across as the only adult on the panel, refusing to shout or talk incessantly without letting others chime in (it’s even more apparent when you watch the full episode, not just the clip above). He should continue being his polite, clear, reasonable self, and leave the shouting to those who don’t mind looking like petulant children vying for the teacher’s attention.

      In reply to #16 by magnusjs:

      Prof. Dawkins shouldn’t let people talk over him constantly. He never got a word in. English good manners must be left at home when going on a panel of screaming, masochistic, american liberals
      Prof. Dawkins shouldn’t let people talk over him constantly….

  6. In reply to #1 by justinesaracen:

    I don’t know why this was posted, unless to give the others on the panel, particularly Naajid Nawaz a voice. Richard must have spoken ten words, and that was it. His point, that young westerners are turning away from religion while young Muslims are becoming more religious, didn’t seem to resonate i…

    This is not the whole segment by the way. The segment starts with Richard Dawkins entering the room while Moore, Sharpton and Plame were there already(Maajid Nawaz was not yet introduced in the table), and that was the most interesting part of the whole segment, and Sharpton had his say on it. I don’t understand why that part of the segment was cut off.
    You can watch that part of the segment here:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/26/richard-dawkins-obama-atheist_n_4166589.html

  7. It depends. Sometimes the religious extremist hide behind the politics, but politics more often hide behind the religion using it as a “flag” to deceive the masses in order to accomplish their political agenda. No matter what case it is, it is always about political gain. And my personal opinion is, religious extremists ARE NOT EVEN A BIT RELIGIOUS, just people with a political agenda to achieve.
    And i wanted to add here that in the clip above, in the part that was not shown, Richard Dawkins, came on as a militant when he stated he was sure that Obama and Kennedy have/had atheist beliefs and that Pope Francis is dangerous because he is a good man. It took us millions of years to get where we are, and i don’t know how long is going to take for human race to accept evolution theory ( that’s why is called a theory) and it is going to be called such until it is embraced by the masses as a fact and not a theory, and it is a slow process to get there.

    In reply to #20 by secularjew:

    In reply to #18 by Zana9:

    The politics are always behind the religious extremism.

    I think you have it the other way around. Religious extremism is often behind politics. Politics are a means to an end, but religious ideologies (and irrationally embraced secular ideologies) are often behind the des…

    • In reply to #21 by Zana9:

      It depends. Sometimes the religious extremist hide behind the politics, but politics more often hide behind the religion using it as a “flag” to deceive the masses in order to accomplish their political agenda. No matter what case it is, it is always about political gain.

      If certain political entities use religion as a way of getting people to do what they want them to do, then the reason this manipulation works is because of religion. One would never argue, for example, that only Hitler, and not the Nazis or their ideologies be blamed for the atrocities of that regime. First of all, it took a nation to elect Hitler and carry out his orders, and secondly, politics are often linked to ideology in a way that can’t be separated. If Hitler and his followers weren’t racist, they would not be putting forth racist policies, and if the Taliban did not think it their religious duty to keep women subjugated, they would not be shooting little girls in the head.

    • You say that religious extremists are not a bit religious. That sounds absurd to me. What do you base that statement on? Yes, I can agree that many religious leaders might not be devout believers but are using religion to get power or achieve political goals… What you seem to forget is that there’s always some kind of ideology behind politics. Something you want to achieve. It might be just personal power and benefits but most of the time political actions reflect a deeper underlying ideology. Hence, saying that terrorism is about politics not religion is really a meaningless statement since their might very well be religious ideologies driving the politics. In the same way saying that terrorism is due to poverty and oppression is a meaningless statement. Of course if these organizations had nuclear bombs, advanced weapons and unlimited means they most likely wouldn’t use suicide bombers. It’s asymmetrical warfare. But, that does again not mean that there’s religious ideologies in the background that fuel and ultimately motivate the terrorists and extremists. This whole idea that you can separate religion and politics just goes to show how little many people know about religion and especially Islam. In reply to #21 by Zana9:

      It depends. Sometimes the religious extremist hide behind the politics, but politics more often hide behind the religion using it as a “flag” to deceive the masses in order to accomplish their political agenda. No matter what case it is, it is always about political gain. And my personal opinion i…

  8. An opportunity lost to discuss how easily the young can see things as black and white, especially through the fog of religion, and be led to believe how fighting for justice demands a necessary evil. Much the same as the way war mongers have roused populace throughout history and why the military to this day prefer young minds to control.

  9. Maajid Nawaz is full of shit. Another lying apologist for Izlam. He says no one educated in Izlam heads terrorist organizations, when Saudi clerics are at the forefront of worldwide “radicalization” efforts. He says executions for things like apostasy are a modern phenomenon, when you can find those religious obligations prescribed in Hadith and classical manuals of Shari’ah. He says terrorism is a modern phenomenon, when Thomas Jefferson had to deal with terrorists in the Mediterranean Sea attacking American merchant vessels.

    The reason why the younger generation is turning to a “radicalized” form of Izlam, is that there’s a movement to go back to what Izlam was in the past. It’s a sort of religious reformation. The Izlam practiced by their parents and grandparents was watered down cultural Izlam, not the real Izlam of the earliest Muzlims and the Caliphs.

  10. Jihadis?

    Naajid Nawaz mentioned NOTHING about the fact that the Quran is replete with belligerent tones towards non-believers. Most Muslims who are peaceful and just mix in don’t take the Quran seriously; that is, they don’t obsess over it. But those who do can see all the belligerence, and for quite a few, it drives them down the Jihadi route. Jihadis get their inspiration from Quranic passages. Why wasn’t that mentioned? There is no out-of-context or misinterpretation excuse, most belligerent passages are unambiguously clear in terms of intent and meaning.

    This problem will NEVER be properly addressed until the Quran is exposed.

    If Naajid Nawaz had said that the Quran was authored and written by men, then THAT would be progress.

  11. One thing that Dawkins said recently, I think it was on this program, was that he is confident that Obama is an atheist. IMO that was a rather presumptuous thing to say. If you read Obama’s book Dreams of my Father his faith seems genuine but unlike most US politicians he doesn’t make a big deal about public displays.

    Here is an article from the Huffington Post that makes the point and compares Dawkins to (ouch!) Oprah Winfrey in the way they both assume that anyone who is moral must defacto agree with them about religion, despite what they say in public

    • In reply to #40 by Red Dog:

      One thing that Dawkins said recently, I think it was on this program, was that he is confident that Obama is an atheist. IMO that was a rather presumptuous thing to say. If you read Obama’s book Dreams of my Father his faith seems genuine but unlike most US politicians he doesn’t make a big deal abo…

      I suspect it was not a good way to say it. It is often in error that we speculate as to what others really believe in their heart of hearts. I would speculate that Richard speculates that Obama does not really believe the whole Christian magic man story, but that would not necessarily stop Obama from actively practicing the Christian religion (which he does, and is what people care about). Glenn Beck got on Richard about the statement here, but went on to say how much he (Beck) liked Pen Jillette, who happens to share much of Beck’s libertarian views. So, yes, people tend to think that whose they like share more of their own views, even if only sub rosa.

Leave a Reply