login
Prayer in School (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-08-05 9:48 AM in reply to: Marvarnett |
Champion  11989      Philly 'burbs |  Subject: RE: Prayer in SchoolSince I am not in school I feel I can safely state, "God help us all." |
| 2013-08-05 9:23 PM in reply to: antlimon166 |
Expert 2192 Greenville, SC | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by antlimon166 Originally posted by Its Only Money = root cause. exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. |
| 2013-08-06 7:40 AM in reply to: Clempson |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
|
| 2013-08-06 8:23 AM in reply to: Clempson |
Pro 5755 | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 Originally posted by Its Only Money = root cause. exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Honestly they should be having separate classes and teaching parenting skills, then maybe most of the actual school day could be spent on educating children. Three minutes of religion during class isn't going to teach these kids the skills they need to get into college or enter the work force. |
| 2013-08-06 8:50 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. |
| 2013-08-06 9:29 AM in reply to: mr2tony |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. |
| 2013-08-06 12:15 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. Since when can a president not talk about or exercise his religious freedoms? Obama tells people constantly that he's a Christian (sadly there are people out there too stupid to listen). Having a prayer before a political function, though, would be crossing a line. Just like having a prayer before the start of classes at school would be over the line. Now, having a `moment of silence' prior to the start of class -- that's fine. But I dont want to hear about your god and how much you love him and blah blah blah before the start of my city council meeting. This isn't a theocracy. |
| 2013-08-06 12:59 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Prayer in School "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams |
| 2013-08-06 1:51 PM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Prayer in School "Charlie don't surf". Robert Duvall |
| 2013-08-06 2:03 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Since when can a president not talk about or exercise his religious freedoms? Obama tells people constantly that he's a Christian (sadly there are people out there too stupid to listen). Having a prayer before a political function, though, would be crossing a line. Just like having a prayer before the start of classes at school would be over the line. Now, having a `moment of silence' prior to the start of class -- that's fine. But I dont want to hear about your god and how much you love him and blah blah blah before the start of my city council meeting. This isn't a theocracy. Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. You're making me laugh. "the president can exercise his religious freedoms" but he can't say a prayer before a political function? He either can or he can't. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an “establishment” of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. - Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790 (1983) (That's Nebraska's Ernie Chambers, BTW) |
| 2013-08-06 2:26 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Since when can a president not talk about or exercise his religious freedoms? Obama tells people constantly that he's a Christian (sadly there are people out there too stupid to listen). Having a prayer before a political function, though, would be crossing a line. Just like having a prayer before the start of classes at school would be over the line. Now, having a `moment of silence' prior to the start of class -- that's fine. But I dont want to hear about your god and how much you love him and blah blah blah before the start of my city council meeting. This isn't a theocracy. Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. You're making me laugh. "the president can exercise his religious freedoms" but he can't say a prayer before a political function? He either can or he can't. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an “establishment” of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. - Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790 (1983) (That's Nebraska's Ernie Chambers, BTW) Right. He can exercise his religious freedoms but cannot be allowed say a prayer before a political function. |
| 2013-08-06 2:37 PM in reply to: mr2tony |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by mr2tony Right. He can exercise his religious freedoms but cannot be allowed say a prayer before a political function. No need to duck... it cleared easily. |
| 2013-08-09 10:33 AM in reply to: mr2tony |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Since when can a president not talk about or exercise his religious freedoms? Obama tells people constantly that he's a Christian (sadly there are people out there too stupid to listen). Having a prayer before a political function, though, would be crossing a line. Just like having a prayer before the start of classes at school would be over the line. Now, having a `moment of silence' prior to the start of class -- that's fine. But I dont want to hear about your god and how much you love him and blah blah blah before the start of my city council meeting. This isn't a theocracy. Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. You're making me laugh. "the president can exercise his religious freedoms" but he can't say a prayer before a political function? He either can or he can't. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an “establishment” of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. - Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790 (1983) (That's Nebraska's Ernie Chambers, BTW) Right. He can exercise his religious freedoms but cannot be allowed say a prayer before a political function. Thought you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it already. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-prayer-2... |
| 2013-08-09 12:22 PM in reply to: NXS |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Prayer in School Originally posted by NXS Originally posted by mr2tony Thought you might be interested in this if you haven't seen it already. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-prayer-2... Originally posted by tuwood Right. He can exercise his religious freedoms but cannot be allowed say a prayer before a political function. Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Since when can a president not talk about or exercise his religious freedoms? Obama tells people constantly that he's a Christian (sadly there are people out there too stupid to listen). Having a prayer before a political function, though, would be crossing a line. Just like having a prayer before the start of classes at school would be over the line. Now, having a `moment of silence' prior to the start of class -- that's fine. But I dont want to hear about your god and how much you love him and blah blah blah before the start of my city council meeting. This isn't a theocracy. Originally posted by mr2tony Originally posted by tuwood Why does this bug you? The phrase ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'' is saying that the state cannot establish a state religion or prohibit someone practicing a certain religion, that is, building a ``wall between church and state.'' I don't think anybody is ignoring what the Constitution says, and that, in fact, has been upheld throughout the centuries. Jefferson certainly didn't ignore what the Constitution said, or misinterpret it. Originally posted by Clempson Originally posted by antlimon166 exactly. and this is why there is separation of church and state to begin with. people came to this country to begin with because they were tired of the catholic church and church of england bullying everyone to the point of execution and torture for not practicing as they saw fit. its freedom from religion that gives you freedom of religion. i don't see why that is such a difficult concept to understand. our schools are getting pretty bad as it is. i think they could use all the time in the world to actually teach the material parents send their kids there to learn rather than hear the mythological opinions of teachers and faculty. Originally posted by Its Only Money ...if we as a religious group were much more open to allowing others to display their beliefs, we wouldn't take as much grief... = root cause. I didn't know we had "separation of church and state" I thought we just had the establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." followed by the free exercise clause "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The term "separation of church and state" was first used in the Danbury Letter by President Jefferson. However the purpose of this letter was to support the Baptist Churches religious liberty against the established state religion of Connecticut. He was telling them there was a wall protecting THEM (the church) from the state trying to push one religious view upon them. It always bugs me how people speak of the "separation of church and state" while ignoring what the constitution actually says. However, I do agree that kids shouldn't be taught mythological opinions by teachers. There's far too much of that going on in the name of "progress".
Jefferson's statement doesn't bother me at all, and I even agree with it in context. The part that bothers me is how the "anti-religious" crowd have hijacked the term to mean that all forms of religion have to be removed from government, which I feel is not the intent of the constitution and most certainly wasn't the intent of Jefferson in his letter. I subscribe to the non-preferential view of the establishment/free exercise clause. My view is that government cannot prefer one religion over another, but has the ability to enter into religious issues for the purpose of the free exercise clause. For example, a President who is a Christian can say a prayer invoking the name of Jesus. A Muslim President (if he were elected) can speak of Muhammad in a speech because of the free exercise clause. Yes, he/she may be part of the government, but they can still exercise their religious freedom. You're making me laugh. "the president can exercise his religious freedoms" but he can't say a prayer before a political function? He either can or he can't. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making the laws is not, in these circumstances, an “establishment” of religion or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country. - Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 790 (1983) (That's Nebraska's Ernie Chambers, BTW) Interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK