The New Republic

Speaking as a lapsed Catholic who survived 12 years of parochial/catholic (parse that one) schools, the Catholic church has always rejected the extreme individualism of the Protestant ethos.

To anyone raised with the Church's communitarian ethos and educated in parochial schools, the notion of _social PROVISION_ is not some kind of alien imposition but a natural extension of Church teaching. Of all the other faiths out there, the one most alien and repugnant to a real Catholic is the hypercompetitive, hyperindividualistic, atomized Protestant dispensation in which people are literally nobodies until/unless they've been "saved." To a Catholic, nobody is a nobody. Everyone belongs, automatically, to a family, by the very fact of being human. If it were a political entity, the Church would be the "Mommy" party.

The Huckster is not "charming" or attractive to anyone except Protestant bible-thumpers and gullible second-tier journalists desperate for access. He'd get crushed, absolutely crushed, in the general.

- teplukhin2you

January 9, 2008 at 2:08pm

Tep, I think your general comments re differences between the Protestant and Catholic personality are correct but what about the (often noted) alliance we've seen of late?  I'm not so sure that the Huckster is a creep to the heartland Catholic.

- Mozier

January 9, 2008 at 6:09pm

Tep and Mozier:

I won't even pretend with all due respect. You have taken the most unflattering cartoonish characterization ala Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell and painted a crimson P on all that fit your convenient category. For a lapsed Catholic (Tep) and a Jew ( Mozier, an assumption) you speak with all of the inside and informed opinions of those whom you propose to ridicule. On second thought Teppy I think I'll reconsider your advice when campainging for office this election cycle.

ps. I won't be voting for Huckabee. That doesn't mean that I don't respect him as I perceive a basic decency which may well flow from his religious convictions. You may find aspects of that conviction condescending. Sometimes I do to but it usually depends upon the holder of the same. I think I'll leave it at that.

- boxofrox

January 9, 2008 at 9:38pm

boxofrox  I didn't mean to insult. For what it's worth I was raised in a hyper individualist Protestant faith but my mother's side is Catholic and my wife's side is Catholic.  But enough about the personal.  Sure, Tep's created a caricature but caricatures can be instructive.  Let it be known that I respect both traditions, and I don't think that Robertson is a valid representation of Protestantism.  (He, truly, is a huckster.)  I was primarily commenting that Evangelicals and Catholics seem to be moving closer together, politically speaking.

- Mozier

January 10, 2008 at 8:10am

Tep, I think Jack made a fair point. One must not confuse the political instrumentalization of Protestantism (even if with the help of many Protestants themselves) by the filthy nihilistic neo-conservatives with Protestantism itself.

Of course, and in what concerns Lutheranism, there is a focus on individual conscience that can be trivialized and become a focus on individual interests. But the basic idea is that the relation with God must not be mediated by an external authority that demands blind obedience, but by an internalization of the Christian message. At least, and with Hegel's eyes, this is the way I face Lutheranism.

On the other hand, these days the Catholics play the "mommy part". Perhaps that's true. I don't buy it completely though. Their sacraments are still attached to an idea of mediated access to the human community, which, from my point of view, is most unchristian. Plus: there are some important movements within the Catholic Church (even cannonized by John Paul II...) that promote the most aggressive individualistic narratives. This is the "hidden message" within the Opus Dei Movement.

Anyway, there is still a good point you've made. Indeed Catholics today (and Ratzinger is increasingly stressing that message) are much more open to an ideal of social justice than Protestants. But still this is no absolute rule. For instance, German Christian Democrats (mostly Lutherans) have a very stressed social commitment, perhaps because they haven be subjected to the take over of Protestant religion by America's neo-conservatives.

- luispc

January 10, 2008 at 8:18am

"they haven't been subjected" of course

- luispc

January 10, 2008 at 8:21am

It's true that Tep ignores the communitarian aspects of reformed Protestantism, which influenced the Protestant social gospel of course.

- Mozier

January 10, 2008 at 8:27am

Mozier:

Sorry about that. The only Moziers I have known were Jewish. Furthermore I don't have anything against Jews. Some of my best friends are Jewish. Most of my love interests in high school were Jewish. I also have a couple of good Catholic friends too.

Hey. I've known Evangelicals who would give you the shirt off of their backs. Very decent people who, bless their little hearts, take the time to pray for the redemption of my everlasting soul that I might avoid the fires of Hell and eternal damnation. Inasmuch that this truly is a concern for ME, I am flattered. The problem is and always has been the power tripper who uses God as a cudgel by which to further hammer out selfish design. I think it is safe to say that such capacity is very ecumenical in nature. Believer and non. " Go away. I never knew you." applies.

Tep resurrects the tired old animosities of Cracker Baptist/Papist persuasion. A collective stye of equal responsibility. I just don't have the time for it.

- boxofrox

January 10, 2008 at 9:37am

Fair enough, box, mozier. Yes, I've known plenty of evangelicals who, alone among my neighbors, showeed a degree of compassion, honesty and willingness to help those in difficulty that is rare among people of any faith. When my fellow liberals shut their doors, and schools, to the Ninth Ward Katrina victims fleeing NOLA, the baptist churches of north Dallas and Harris County outside Houston were opening their arms, their hearts and their pocketbooks. I've never seen anything like it.

My point, badly made, was more about doctrine, which of course has little to do with real-world experience. Obviously I need to remember and trust my own experience and put aside doctrinal stereotypes and BS.

My goof.

- teplukhin2you

January 10, 2008 at 2:33pm

New Hampshire tends to be a liberal state, of course.  Catholics are divided like the rest of the country,right down the middle, between those of the liberal bent (eg those who desire women to be priests; homosexual acceptance,  social justice above liturgical concerns, etc) and those who maintain a very strict conservative position within the Church.  The latter would never vote for Hillary, precisely because she is a woman in favor of abortion.  Watch for the other more red states and witness where the Catholic vote goes.  I'm not too certain Huckabee is their answer, either.  He is not a fiscal conservative and in that way much too much like George Bush.  He is, however, and obviously, a social conservative so in the voting booths, why, there might just go your conservative Catholic vote.  But not to Hillary! Never!

- zipper57

January 10, 2008 at 2:52pm

Possibly, the fact that Obama is even more pro-abortion rights than Hillary is has something to do with it?

But much more righteous to say that white Catholics are racist. Yeah, that must be it.

- jmkerr

January 10, 2008 at 3:55pm

box:  No offense taken.  If you know Moziers who are Jewish I'd be fascinated to meet them.  The name dead-ends in our genealogical search; we've concluded that we're probably linked to the (German) Moser name.  My dad sure looks Jewish -- maybe we are!

- Mozier

January 10, 2008 at 8:14pm

Tep. I most always enjoy your contributions to this board. You make this little corner of the world a better and more interesting place for your efforts. Agree or no. I selfishly endorse your recasting of these contentious dynamics in that I can continue to enjoy your insights without regard to this issue.

Jack

- boxofrox

January 11, 2008 at 10:25am

Personally, I don't feel that Teplukhin misspoke at all. After all, it is the very notion of being "saved" that underlies Max Weber's thesis of the protestant ethos. The fact that one does well materially is proof that one is of the elect. Exactly how one got to be doing so well materially doesn't matter, evidently, the Protestant god doesn't care about the means, just the ends.

It was this sentiment--"I'm saved, too bad for the rest of you", that underlies John Milton's sentiments towards predestination: "Though I be damned to hell for it, such a God I cannot respect."

Not all protestants are the same, of course. But those Protestant churhes with a commitment to social and economic justice are those which remain closest to their Catholic roots.

And please let's not confuse social and economic justice with condescension such as that shown to the Katrina victims.

- mroman

January 11, 2008 at 4:52pm

I think tep was drawing a valid if rather luridly-colored distinction.  It's not so much about the individual capacity for charity (see his second post about Texas churches helping Katrina victims) but about the psychic atmosphere -- for want of a better term -- in which people are educated to view the relationship between the individual and the community in certain ways and not in others.

For example, as an equally lapsed Catholic with several years of parochial junior and high school still knocking around inside my head, I would say that there are is one noticeable way in which the Catholic world-view reveals a different perspective.  In particular, a certain "globalization" or international sensibility was always part of the norm and -- even if it was ultimately paternalistic -- we were taught all through that there really are other societies and countries and peoples in the world that have their own independence and autonomy.  My guess is that the more extreme assertions of American Exceptionalism are less at home in Catholic culture than they are in evangelical Protestantism.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2008 at 5:08pm

mroman:Are your opinions based upon some things which you've read? Or are we talking practical experience here?

"And please let's not confuse social and economic justice with condescension such as that shown to the Katrina victims."

Would you please clarify this statement for me.

- boxofrox

January 11, 2008 at 10:19pm

ironyroad: It seems to me that there is a contradiction in your statements concerning "globalized community" and " other societies and countries and peoples in the world that have their own independence and autonomy". You're saying that Catholics are more disposed to tolerance? I think I get it....Protestants want to put an American football field in every hamlet and burg so as to avail the opportunity to worship the Gipper and his most excellent quarterback....Jeeezusss. Obviously I disagree but further elaboration will have to wait till the morrow. Talk to you later.

- boxofrox

January 11, 2008 at 10:30pm

Oh good grief.  I hesitate to weigh in, but cannot restrain myself.

Since we're establishing bona fides, here's mine:  raised agnostic/atheist, converted to evangelical Protestantism at 18, two seminary degrees (both Protestant, one Ivy League), worked in an academic institute that studied American Catholicism at a major Catholic university, teach American religious history, among other things, etc., etc.  Oh, and like a poster above, mt father's side of lapsed German Catholics traces back to some presumably lapsed German Jews who converted in the 18th c.

This stuff about Protestants being individualistic and Catholics being communitarian is way overblown (which isn't to say there's absolutely nothing to it).  Protestant preaching and piety has always had a place for the idea of the church as the "body of Christ" where all members are untied and serve each other.  Lest this sound too exclusive (if you ain't in the club, you don't get the love) there's also been just as much stress on imitating the God "who so loved the world" (the sinful world) as to send His only Son, and likewise imitating the Son ("What would Jesus do?") who left the glories of heaven to teach, heal, suffer, and be persecuted by the very people he came to save.

It is true that Protestants in America haven't always theologized about the church as much as they have other aspects of the creed.  Charles Finney's mid-19th c. theology text didn't even include a chapter on the church.  But given he strenuous efforts on behalf of abolition--and the fact that Oberlin College under his presidency was the first to admit students regardless of color or gender (when many respected secular schools, eg, still hadn't a century later!) maybe we can forgive him.

It is certainly true that the dominant forms of Protestantism in America see political or social justice in individual terms.  But that just means they have an understanding of "justice" that mroman, eg, doesn't agree with.  Many Anabaptist groups also disagree with it--and they're MUCH further from "their Catholic roots" than the other forms of Protestantism we're discussing.  And of course, we have the neo-Conservative Catholics--from Michael Novak to Richard Neuhaus to John Roberts to Antonin Scalia--all of whom are perfectly at home with American individualism.

PS  Are you serious, mroman?  Charity--love-- in the case alluded to, is nothing but condescension?  I take it you know these people you're talking about?

- John Haas

January 11, 2008 at 10:40pm

Yikes... this is one of those times I wish I 'd never posted. In the real world, here's the experience I alluded to above: I lived in Highland Park TX, the ultra-conservative ultra-wealthy "bubble" Dallas neighborhood that used to serve as Cheney's stomping grounds, on a kid-friendly block in which there was enormous social pressure to conform to the bible-soaked, overhwelmingly white southern American protestant and socially-financially aspirational model of an upstanding Park Cities family. When I had a medical emergency requiring a hospital stay, the ONLY person on the block (beyond our liberal yankee half-Euro half-American friends next door) to even ask my wife whether we might need some help was the most fervent evangelical on the block. No one else bothered to call or knock on the door.

When it came time to sell our house and move out of TX, the ONLY potential buyer or real estate pro who dealt with us in a straight-up, honest, fair and respectful manner was the eventual purchaser, a woman who was a devout evangelical minister given to three-hour services several times a week. We did a handshake deal and closed within a couple of days. I've never experienced such a satsifactory business deal.

And then there was the extraordinary outpouring of support from Texas baptists and evangelicals for the Ninth Ward NOLA refugees post-Katrina. All in all, Americans are not big on doctrine. Judge them by their works, and you'll see that the evangelicals defy the stereotype that I, foolishly, sketched out above.

- teplukhin2you

January 12, 2008 at 2:29am

I don't mind the corpus christi reference, it seems to me a perfect metaphor for what is being illustrated.

For most of Protestant theology, it is the individual, with his individual relationship to God, that is of paramount import. This is reflected in one of the most deeply held protestant tenets--one which applies to every sect--that a priest is not a necessary intermediary between man and God. In virtually every discussion between Protestant and Catholic, this will be one of the first items which Protestants use to distinguish themselves from the Catholic faith.

To be sure, Protestants accept and understand the Body of Christ. But they do so from the perspective of the individual cell. That cell is a part of a greater whole, and works with other cells, but it is individual and unique to itself.

For most Catholics, the identity of themselves as a cell in the Body of Christ is linked irretrievably to the Body itself. Like the Protestant, they are part of a greater whole, and interact with other cells, but first and foremost is that their intrinsic existence is as part of greater whole.

It is a subtle difference. But it is an important one. It underlies not only the concept of the priesthood, but that of works. These are tenets that Protestants have rejected as necessary to salvation, in favor of the individual experience of God.

And it does lead to a different sort of worldview. The Catholic is always part of a community and how he conducts his life is always through that community. The Protestant, because he does not depend on that community for his salvation, is free to conduct his life in accord with his principles, and his principles only. And the important thing is that they will view their secular communities, in both cases, through their worldview as set by their faith.

One last thing--in terms of condescension. Kevin Phillips in his book "American Theocracy" does a good job of explaining Southern Baptist and Evangelical theologies in respect to how people of those faiths view government. What it comes down to is that often these notions of "less government" and "no more social programs" arise directly out of a theology which puts the responsibility for man's salvation on the individual alone. The SBC and Evangelical prototype have to vote against social and economic justice because to do otherwise would be to betray the principles of their own faith.

When they reach out to Katrina victims, therefore, no matter how much they may "feel their pain", it is out of a sense of charity. And charity, ultimately, is condescension: not justice.

- mroman

January 12, 2008 at 9:05am

For all his sagacity, Kevin Philips seems to have never read FIRST THINGS.

mroman seems to have never heard of monasticism.

And for my part, I've never received whatever education one needs to understand that what appears to be simple kindness--providing shelter and food to the displaced--is actually a vile form of condescension.

- John Haas

January 12, 2008 at 12:48pm

mroman:

I'll give your subtle Individual/Body distinctions a provisional standing. I will accept that the Protestant leans toward emphasizing the individual as the holder of conscience and consequence. That, ultimately, Jesus is the only intermediary with the power of absolution, approval, condemnation, acceptance etc. That the body of Christ is made up of fully autonomous individuals answerable only to their consciences and the consequences of their actions. Thus free will fully owned and submission fully given.

Now practical realities would have the distinctions between the Catholics and Protestants individual relationship to the Body drawn with less bright lines than doctrine would imply. So much that similarities are much more prevalent that differences.

Your contention that these distinctions manifest themselves as a perversion of justice to the extent that charity in the hands of a Protestant practitioner is condescension seems to me an assumption lacking humility. Further that such a truncated definition of justice belies the inadequacy of the former advocate.

- boxofrox

January 12, 2008 at 12:49pm

"And for my part, I've never received whatever education one needs to understand that what appears to be simple kindness--providing shelter and food to the displaced--is actually a vile form of condescension."

John. You simply haven't been given the proper tools necessary to see that all human activity is self interest and that unconditional love is a futile and unrealizable illusion. A cruel joke upon humanity. All, my friend, is vanity. Mother Theresa was a selfish bitch and all comers are willing accomplices in their own foolishness. You suffer delusion, Mr Haas.

And tomorrow the sermon will touch upon meaningless approximations of love as manifest in charity and justice.

Jack

- boxofrox

January 12, 2008 at 1:54pm

"mroman seems to have never heard of monasticism."

Actually, the monastic movement is, per se, the best example of what I noted above. Even in those monastic movements where the Rule forbade speech, there was never, ever any doubt that the monks existed as part of a community. And they worked as part of a greater community.

You might, if you wished, contrast the efforts of St. Francis of Assisi with those of Andrew Carnegie. Both gave much to the world, but the way in which the offered their skills, Francis as the founder of a new order dedicated to non-judgemental communal ministration, Carnegie as an individual "father knows best" philathropist, reflects perfectly their respective worldviews.

"Now practical realities would have the distinctions between the Catholics and Protestants individual relationship to the Body drawn with less bright lines than doctrine would imply. So much that similarities are much more prevalent that differences."

To the extent that most of Christianity today is "the Christian God believes what I, personally, believe, so I'm okay" I would agree. But to those who believe in the Catholic faith sincerely, and for those who take the Protestant sectaries sincerely, they are anything but doctrinal niceties: they both inform and dictate how they will live with and relate to their fellow humanity.

Nor did I say that the condescension was vile, merely that it contrasts with the obligation--for the sake of his own salvation--on the part of the Catholic towards his suffering brethren. The heart of any condescending act is the fact that it is non-obligatory. For the true Protestant, after all, giving to charity is just another way of saying, "look, I'm one of the elect, I've done well enough that I can give to others". That is condescension.

- mroman

January 12, 2008 at 3:55pm

No doubt, there's self-interest involved.  People want to please God, or make themselves feel good, or attract members to their church, or convert the objects of their charity, or any number of other goals.  That seems to me just human nature.  I imagine, if we're all out of our teens, we've recognized this, some unlucky numbers of us have gone through an Ayn Rand phase in reaction to having our illusions shattered, and have hopefully gotten past it and moved on.

The nice thing about acts of charity and love is that they still do good, even when they arrise from mixed motives.  The hungry still get a meal and the homeless still get shelter.

But, who knows.  Maybe, as others ride past them un-moved, the hungry and homeless nod to each other in satisfaction.  "At least," one says to the other, "He wasn't condescending to us."  "Yeah.  I hate that."

- John Haas

January 12, 2008 at 3:58pm

 "My guess is that the more extreme assertions of American Exceptionalism are less at home in Catholic culture than they are in evangelical Protestantism."

I don't really have any problem with that statement. Your qualifier of 'guess' in relationship to 'American Exceptionalism' seems reasonable. I might take issue with how 'American Exceptionalism' is defined to the degree with which 'American' enjoins its capacities as adverb, adjective and noun. Whereas I would agree that the hazard of egocentrism increases to the extent that "Individual" is emphasized so too does the possibility of meeting other individuals upon the common ground of shared humanity. Good and bad. In practice Protestant missionaries are admirable and selfless given only to the well being of their intended beneficiaries. Their help is not for the glory of the church but for the edification of the individual. It is within the multitudes of the individual that issues forth the capacity to love which is the foundation of the church. Thereby satisfying the bidirectional imperative of the Individual/Collective. One naturally attends the other. All things being equal.........Ostensibly. Oh but those ostensibles.......

- boxofrox

January 12, 2008 at 4:12pm

mroman:

I've seen enough of your view to know that I don't like you. Anyone who can read minds and hearts the way that you apparently can is someone I'd rather not be around.

- boxofrox

January 12, 2008 at 4:19pm

Quick note:  Carnegie wasn't a Protestant.  He wasn't a Christian.  He was a social Darwinist.

More substantial:  Protestants do hold "love" (including charity, mercy and service) to be obligatory.  Allow me to refer you to Jonathan Edwards' Treatise on Spiritual Affections as an example of how that works.

- John Haas

January 12, 2008 at 5:09pm

I was trying to get away from the charity issue, as I think that's been a derailment here on the thread.  Clearly, most religions and all branches of Christianity demand works as well as faith from their adherents.  But even in connection with the question of basic world-view, I was a bit weaely about it, I have to admit.  I wrote "my guess is" as a self-protection because I didn't want to assert something I can't prove.

Nevertheless, my gut feeling is that even conservative, hawkish, Republican-voting Catholics can be a little uneasy with the wiggy redemptive strain of fundamentalist Protestantism.  There's something theologically suspect about assuming that one's own bit of dry land on the planet rates higher in God's cosmic plan than one's neighbor's bit of dry land.  Most countries -- other than officially atheist ones -- tend to claim somewhere a divine protection for their sovereignty and their national destiny.  Indeed, part of our current problem in the world might stem from the fact that other folks probably take their claims to divine sponsorship just as seriously as we do ours.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2008 at 5:41pm

Irony:

Well let's just simplify then and say that anything less than perfect love is extraneous to the Christian message. Ever thus shall it be. So goes the largest degree of acceptance and tolerance and the most demanding task master ever devised by conscience.

I want to make it absolutely clear that it wasn't and isn't my purpose to trumpet ANY doctrinal approach. Such high minded pursuits are rendered gibberish in the face of a simple uncomplicated childlike act of generosity for its own sake. Though I have spent a good deal of my life putting forth and contemplating constructions of all manner and sort to include psycho/spiritual inquiry with its attendant frames, still remains my convictions that love trumps all. So the Spirit whispers as strained ears translate through the filters of imaginative wantings.

So be it. Be well Irony. You strike me as a decent and honest fellow. I'm played out.....and have to play out......trying to get together a horn arrangement for an R&B composition. Spitting trumpets and dipping barisax to hang the hat on.

- boxofrox

January 12, 2008 at 6:38pm

"...my gut feeling is that even conservative, hawkish, Republican-voting Catholics can be a little uneasy with the wiggy redemptive strain of fundamentalist Protestantism.  There's something theologically suspect about assuming that one's own bit of dry land on the planet rates higher in God's cosmic plan than one's neighbor's bit of dry land."

I think you'd find the complications of reality will frustrate any neat distinctions of that sort.  Many Irish (especially) Catholics have outdone almost any Protestants in their deification of the USA--they come in second only to Mormons on that score.  By the same token, while the "Christian nation" type of fundamentalist/evangelical is well known, there's a huge percentage of folk who share that theology and reject the religious nationalism.

- John Haas

January 12, 2008 at 6:53pm

"Quick note:  Carnegie wasn't a Protestant.  He wasn't a Christian.  He was a social Darwinist"

The adult recapitulates the child. Look at Carnegie's background as an orphan in Calvinist Scotland, and you see the later man.

"More substantial:  Protestants do hold "love" (including charity, mercy and service) to be obligatory.  Allow me to refer you to Jonathan Edwards' Treatise on Spiritual Affections as an example of how that works."

Actually, there is a difference between works as proof of a loving spirit and works as obligatory to salvation. Edwards is a conventional Protestant theologian, even despite the grace of his writing, in that he attributes works to the possession of the Holy Spirit. Which in its own turn proceeds from the concept that one is saved, the fact that the Holy Spirit works through you is merely evidence of the same.

"I've seen enough of your view to know that I don't like you. Anyone who can read minds and hearts the way that you apparently can is someone I'd rather not be around. "

With good reason. Wouldn't want your heart or mind read so easily?

- mroman

January 14, 2008 at 5:07am

"With good reason. Wouldn't want your heart or mind read so easily?"

That's it. Man How did you do that? It's kind of scary. Wow......

- boxofrox

January 14, 2008 at 6:52am

John Haas - "Many Irish (especially) Catholics have outdone almost any Protestants in their deification of the USA--they come in second only to Mormons on that score."

Not really. It's true that my father's generation (b. in the 1910s-1920s) of Irish Catholics outdid any other in their patriotism, but a large part of that was due to the specific circumstances of their generation and the historical/political context. In short, there developed in these men and women a hyper-assimilationist desire, for several reasons.

First, there was the memory of Al Smith's humilation in 1928 and the desire of many young 1st- and 2nd-generation Irish Catholics to overcome the dominant stereotype of what JFK sneered at as "lace-curtain" big-city Irish. In other words, instead of going against the grain and emphasizing their uniqueness as Irish Catholics, for these young and socially ambitious Irish the goal was to prove themselves _more_ capable than protestant Americans-- and more American than the Americans.

Second, there was a global conflict which offered an ideal opportunity to show Irish Catholics as not just brave and daring soldiers, as always was the case in the anglo american military tradition, but also fighters for an elevated, progressive ideal-- one which, consciously or not, actually put them at odds with reactionary Rome, thereby underscoring their "American-ness" and helping slay the dual loyalty myth.

Finally, there was the Cold War-JFK trifecta, under which a new generation of Irish Catholics could not only fight for religious freedom and support the Church in central-east Europe (and Vietnam-- remember Father Dooley?) but also ally themselves with the progressive wave of US liberalism, embodied by Kennedy, AND support a Catholic candidate for president. In short it had by 1960 become correct, and inspriring, and cool to be a patriotic Irish Catholic American.

Not so today. Remember, that charmed moment occurred nearly a half century ago. I doubt you'd find most Irish Catholics to be in the forefront of flag-waving Patriotically Correct America today.

- teplukhin2you

January 14, 2008 at 1:18pm