Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Freedom of Religion??? Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:47:46 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:
If an organization doesn't accept federal funding, they don't have to follow thre rules of the republic? If Exxon or Apple decide to stop receiving monies from the government, they can decide their own rules? Hire/fire by whatever standard they see fit? Discriminatory or not?


As an aside to WMM's post regarding this, if you live in one of America's twenty-three "Right to Work" states, then you can be fired for any reason; you can be fired for no reason at all. it doesn't matter whether the employer is a union shop or not. Any company can fire an employee for any reason, discriminatory or other. The only thing they can't do is: if they want to fire someone for any discriminatory reason, they can't put the real reason down on paper.



MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, February 13, 2012 8:49:50 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Are we getting a little broad with the whole 'first amendment' argument to assert that their rights are being infringed upon by not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of women's health care? The above quote is the only statement regarding religion in the first amendment of the constitution.

Is their ability to establish themselves as catholics at stake? no.
Are they free to practice as catholics in society? yes.

So, in order to assert that their first amendment rights are being violated, you have to make the argument that not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of healthcare from the insurance policies that they offer to employees represents a violation of their ability to exercise their religion. That seems like a stretch.


I feel the same way. It's human nature, though, to scream "Unfair!" when breaking the rules goes against you, but be silent when the rule-breaking is in your favor. Go figure.

lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 7:57:05 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
LadyX wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Are we getting a little broad with the whole 'first amendment' argument to assert that their rights are being infringed upon by not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of women's health care? The above quote is the only statement regarding religion in the first amendment of the constitution.

Is their ability to establish themselves as catholics at stake? no.
Are they free to practice as catholics in society? yes.

So, in order to assert that their first amendment rights are being violated, you have to make the argument that not allowing them to exclude certain provisions of healthcare from the insurance policies that they offer to employees represents a violation of their ability to exercise their religion. That seems like a stretch.

If they were forced to use birth control or receive abortions, then I'd buy it. But the responsibility to practice religion should depend on the individual who practices it. Because coverage of a procedure, pill, or device is available does not mean that those covered are bound to take advantage of them.

As it is, especially since Obama caved in, religion is being allowed to impose it's "values" on those in their employ. Those who work for them have no relationship to the religion itself (and if they do, it's coincidental). So why are they given so much leeway here? Lots of people have all kinds of personal leanings, definitions of right and wrong, etc. But, cloaked in religion, people's benefits get redefined?

I really have a hard time seeing a religion's ability to practice freely being endangered by allowing Blue Cross or Humana to offer the 3% of their total coverage that rubs the Vatican the wrong way.


I don't think it's broad at all. Telling a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or Jewish hospital that they must provide coverage for things they are morally and religiously opposed to is very specific. To any of those mentions churches, being mandated to provide the morning after pill or pay for any service they deem unethical it precisely an infringement of rights.

Is their ability to establish themselves as Catholics? Yes. Isn't it up to any person or institution to determine what makes them who or what they are? Can government or any outside force establish that kind of thing? No.

If the catholic organizations were forcing all it's employees to refrain from using birth control or say they could not receive abortions, or else be fired.. then I'd buy that religion is imposing it's values on those in their employ. They are doing neither. Telling Father Mulcahey that he has to pay for Hotlip Houlihan's birth control is denying him the ability to practice his religion as he sees fit. The church is making no moral decision on what any individual can or can't do. They are only saying they don't want to pay for it, thus condoning an action they don't believe is morally right.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 8:07:57 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
[quote=WellMadeMale]

Those are corporations, Mister. As fare as I know, people are not asked to donate their money directly to entities of this nature, although I suppose that purchasing stock in those companies might qualify as such. Those companies don't really follow most of the commonplace rules of this republic anyway. Hell, they offshore 99% of their manufacturing to 3rd world countries where they aren't regulated, overseen or bothered by being humanitarians in the least.

Down the line when some Conservative wack-a-doo gets back into the Oval Office and decides that Planned Parenthood should provide Abstinence Only education to their patients/clientele it will be ok? Not because of religion, but because scientifically speaking it's 100% effective in preventing pregnancy and disease. Since PPH receives federal money, the government can tell them how to spend it right? This stuff can work both ways. The social pendulum will eventually swing back towards a more conservative approach. I sure as hell don't want some Pat Robertson type in office in the future to have such broad power.

The Catholic church has been discriminating women for centuries. Prior to 2001, they were doing so with donations, extortion and outright warfare/theft. Is it okay? I don't think so, but...you pick your battles in life, dude. I choose to ignore that outfit like I do the Apple conglomerate.

I'm in total agreement of ignoring Apple. I'd avoid the Catholic church as well if I weren't married to a Catholic. Gotta pick your battles, I agree there too. I actually disagree strongly with most of the religious teaching of the Catholic church. Which is why I have not and will not join the church. Even though I don't like their beliefs, I do believe they do have the right to believe as they see fit.quote]





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 1:44:08 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,374
Location: United States
lafayettemister, the conservative wack-a-doos are the ones making this a religious issue. It's a women's health issue, but they've changed the narrative so that it seems like what the administration is doing is anti-religion. It isn't. It's pro women's health. We can already see how the wack-a-doos will behave when they take over the Presidency by the way they've behaved in the House and by the wacko legislation they've introduced in states where they've gained a majority.

Catholics have the right to believe as they see fit, but they don't have the right to make me suffer for what they believe.
lafayettemister
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 2:05:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
lafayettemister, the conservative wack-a-doos are the ones making this a religious issue. It's a women's health issue, but they've changed the narrative so that it seems like what the administration is doing is anti-religion. It isn't. It's pro women's health. We can already see how the wack-a-doos will behave when they take over the Presidency by the way they've behaved in the House and by the wacko legislation they've introduced in states where they've gained a majority.

Catholics have the right to believe as they see fit, but they don't have the right to make me suffer for what they believe.


To be fair, it is to be expected that leaders of religious institutions are going to make a big deal out of what they perceive as an anti-religion narrative. It should have been completely expected for the leaders of the Catholic church to react this way. Is it possible that something can be ant-religion and pro women's health at the same time? Religious wack-a-doos in political office are reckless and shortsighted, as they should be serving their constituency objectively. However, the Catholic church holds no office. They are behaving like a church that feels like their ideals are being governed away via governmental mandate. They are not making legislation, only protecting what they believe and hold dear.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 4:21:02 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
They get away with it because of their history and membership. Nobody's infringing on their rights. I could decide I hated flu vaccines, and if I talked enough people into agreeing with me and forming a religion, I guess I could deny flu vaccines to my employees, too.

Oh, I forgot, I'm not technically denying them, they can still pay $130 out of pocket instead of $10 under coverage. For a lot of people though, besides the principle of exclusion and costing them money based on a book made into religion, that's considerable money to have to spend punitively. It's stupid to claim that exclusion from coverage isn't dictating their morals and in effect denying treatment. With enough money and time, anything can be had, but that's not the point.

I do get the realities of it though: the religious bullies win again. That constitution must be really big for all the hiding that zealots do behind it.
Dirty_D
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:00:43 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,196
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
im sorry i fail to see why an organization should have to provide the funding for something that the are against the principals of. I was married for many many years into a very religous family who strongly held that BC was the devils work. For me to have asked them to pay for my pills would have been very wrong & I cant see that this is different.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:32:54 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States
naughtynurse wrote:
im sorry i fail to see why an organization should have to provide the funding for something that the are against the principals of. I was married for many many years into a very religous family who strongly held that BC was the devils work. For me to have asked them to pay for my pills would have been very wrong & I cant see that this is different.



Because it's not their money. They're given funding and part of that funding is supposed to pay for insurance benefits for their employees. It's kinda like you buying a shiny new sports car and the dealer delivering a Prius because he's decided he wants to go green, and besides... that sports car wasn't any good for you anyway.

LadyX
Posted: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:55:38 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Congrats, right-wingers: congress is now discussing legislation that will allow any employer to exclude any health service coverage, no matter how critical or basic, by claiming that it violates their religious or moral convictions.

Quote:
Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. That is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”


Nah, not so much. I'm more interested in what my boss' religious beliefs are; god forbid I do something medically that he disagrees with.

Good idea, assholes. Our health care options will be at your whims now, but at least your precious fu**ing rights (which were never really in question) will stay intact. Thank heaven for that!

Go forth in judgement, don't worry about those in your employ. They can take out loans to do the things that make them most healthy and/or represent their rights to treat and care for their own body regardless of what somebody's beliefs might disagree with (which obviously are less important than a company's rights to take a sharpie to an Aetna group health policy); don't sweat it. I mean, at least you're not doing this shit AND taking tax dollars...right?

bs
MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 9:52:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,141
Location: United States








Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:09:03 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,374
Location: United States
Chairman Darrell Issa's (R-Calif.) committee, which is looking into the administration's actions, refused to allow a woman, Sandra Fluke, to testify, on the grounds that she wasn't qualified. Instead they scheduled ten witnesses, all of whom are against President Obama's policy.

Meanwhile, the Virginia legislature passed legislation which says that life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet. The vote was 66-32. This would obviously prohibit the morning after pill as well as Plan B. Other legislation requires women who want an abortion to have invasive (vaginal) ultra sound done first. None of this is because of women's health reasons. House Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment which would allow women to opt out. Transvaginal ultrasound would be mandatory even if the woman's doctor says conventional ultrasound will do the same thing. Proving that in Virginia, at least, the Republican majority believe that they not only own women's reproductive organs and can tell women what to do with them, but they can invade them at will.

First they want to take away my right to choose my method of birth control, and now they want to invade my vagina.

LadyX
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:31:56 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Who cares about violations of women's bodies, rights, and access to health coverage, so long as a sexually-repressed group of bishops' political clout remains intact?

Part of me has to wonder what the authors of the 1st Amendment would think about the imposition of theological views as a condition for employment, which is what the catholic church is doing now. Another part of me wonders when we'll just change the name of our country to Jesusland, since those views are all that matter to republicans it seems. To hell with women, apparently.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:01:11 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
.

Meanwhile, the Virginia legislature passed legislation which says that life begins at conception, when the sperm and egg meet. The vote was 66-32. This would obviously prohibit the morning after pill as well as Plan B. Other legislation requires women who want an abortion to have invasive (vaginal) ultra sound done first. None of this is because of women's health reasons. House Republicans rejected a Democratic amendment which would allow women to opt out. Transvaginal ultrasound would be mandatory even if the woman's doctor says conventional ultrasound will do the same thing. Proving that in Virginia, at least, the Republican majority believe that they not only own women's reproductive organs and can tell women what to do with them, but they can invade them at will.

First they want to take away my right to choose my method of birth control, and now they want to invade my vagina.




I'm in total agreement here. I don't see how anyone could make a law saying when life begins? Totally absurd. I doubt this law would hold up in the Supreme Court. Hopefully someone in power in Virginia will come to their senses and put a stop to this. No way government should be able to force a woman to have Transvaginal ultrasound. Nor to prevent her from doing what she deems best. It's an end run around already established law. Unacceptable.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:07:18 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
These people in "power" and I believe the majority are men, have no idea what a woman or female goes through when deciding and then committing to having an abortion. The soul searching, agonizing and worry that it entails. Yes, it's true some women use it as birth control but I would bet it's not as many as they think. Until he can step into a woman's shoes and get pregnant, he needs to butt the fuck out!! Whoops, my Lady hat fell askew there for a minute. angry7
Milik_Redman
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:14:38 PM

Rank: Internet Philosopher

Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4,381
Location: somewhere deep under the Earth, United States
The one and only thing Government can be counted on is to screw the little guy in favor of special interest.
Here is an interesting thought. Instead of freedom of religion, how about freedom FROM religion?
Naw, that would never work...

β€œIt is a great thing to know your vices.”
― Marcus Tullius Cicero


My Editors Choice Award Winning Stories.








Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:28:31 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
lafayettemister wrote:
I'm in total agreement here. I don't see how anyone could make a law saying when life begins? Totally absurd. I doubt this law would hold up in the Supreme Court.


Not to derail the whole discussion, but don't our current murder laws already do this? To end someone's life, they first have to be defined as living. Currently law tends to see that as happening at birth, though there are times when someone has been charged with a double homicide for killing a pregnant mother.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:41:39 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
LadyX wrote:
Congrats, right-wingers: congress is now discussing legislation that will allow any employer to exclude any health service coverage, no matter how critical or basic, by claiming that it violates their religious or moral convictions.



Nah, not so much. I'm more interested in what my boss' religious beliefs are; god forbid I do something medically that he disagrees with.

Good idea, assholes. Our health care options will be at your whims now, but at least your precious fu**ing rights (which were never really in question) will stay intact. Thank heaven for that!

Go forth in judgement, don't worry about those in your employ. They can take out loans to do the things that make them most healthy and/or represent their rights to treat and care for their own body regardless of what somebody's beliefs might disagree with (which obviously are less important than a company's rights to take a sharpie to an Aetna group health policy); don't sweat it. I mean, at least you're not doing this shit AND taking tax dollars...right?

bs


This opens up a whole bunch of issues for an employer. In an interview, who brings up religion? How many extra "discrimination based on religion" lawsuits are you going to get because the employer wasn't able to help learning about the potential employee's religion in the process of informing him or her of the company's religion and how that affects the health plan? "As soon as they found out I was Catholic, their protestant company didn't want to hire me anymore." I don't know the rules in the US, but in Canada, religion isn't supposed to be mentioned in an interview in order to avoid any potential discrimination. If I was an HR person, I'd be hating this legislation. A lawyer who specializes in discrimination lawsuits would be loving it though.

And speaking of discrimination, how many antisemitic people are suddenly going to drop circumcisions from their health plans? Or even take it one step further and encourage a prospective Jewish employee to find another company to work for, one with a more Jew-friendly health plan? Could they do the same for other religions or even races? "I'm sorry, my religion doesn't believe in that treatment. What? Oh, I had no idea that condition occurs more often in people of Asian descent. Well, I'm sorry, but that treatment is just wrong in the eyes of my god. They'll have to pay for it themselves, or find a different employer."
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:41:52 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,373
Location: Alabama, United States
Rembacher wrote:


Not to derail the whole discussion, but don't our current murder laws already do this? To end someone's life, they first have to be defined as living. Currently law tends to see that as happening at birth, though there are times when someone has been charged with a double homicide for killing a pregnant mother.


I don't understand the question? Are you saying that a person that is alive and walking around isn't considered living? I'm not being a smartass, I dont' understand your question.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 3:45:47 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
Does anyone think its hypocritical that republicans and pseudo-conservatives in the US endorse "right to life" yet want to give everyone guns and support capital punishment!!
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 4:00:50 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
A little trivia for many of you: there were several lawsuits against the clergy and the Roman Catholic Church for sex abuse in the US. these were banded together and given "class action" status by the courts implicating the Catholic Church in massive coverup of sex abuse over decades in their parishes. Lately the lawsuits were dropped by the courts on the Vatican's claim and insistence that the Roman Catholic Church as such is an "independent country" and hence not liable and cannot be sued!! I find this reprehensible.

Might I also underscore that any presidential candidate who brings his/her "faith", "religion" or lack thereof up for political debate has already lost my vote. I believe that people's exercise or lack of exercise of their "faith" should remain in the personal domain. I imagine the forefathers of this great nation and the founders of the US Constitution cringe and turn over in the graves hearing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt. Hope my brethren can open their eyes and be able to differentiate true "conservatism" from "pseudo-conservatism" and will vote for Ron Paul as he is the only eligible candidate given the present economic and political climate in the US.
Guest
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 12:50:02 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
loccodivertido wrote:
A little trivia for many of you: there were several lawsuits against the clergy and the Roman Catholic Church for sex abuse in the US. these were banded together and given "class action" status by the courts implicating the Catholic Church in massive coverup of sex abuse over decades in their parishes. Lately the lawsuits were dropped by the courts on the Vatican's claim and insistence that the Roman Catholic Church as such is an "independent country" and hence not liable and cannot be sued!! I find this reprehensible.

That's because it's main headquarters is in the smallest country in the world. But it is a country.


Might I also underscore that any presidential candidate who brings his/her "faith", "religion" or lack thereof up for political debate has already lost my vote. I believe that people's exercise or lack of exercise of their "faith" should remain in the personal domain. I imagine the forefathers of this great nation and the founders of the US Constitution cringe and turn over in the graves hearing the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt. Hope my brethren can open their eyes and be able to differentiate true "conservatism" from "pseudo-conservatism" and will vote for Ron Paul as he is the only eligible candidate given the present economic and political climate in the US.


Poor old Ron's time has come and gone. He's just too old for it anymore. I'm sure he's a sweet, kindly grandpa but, I don't think he can keep up with the younger people and what it takes to run the US.
Buz
Posted: Sunday, March 04, 2012 8:20:03 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,798
Location: Atlanta, United States
chefkathleen wrote:


Poor old Ron's time has come and gone. He's just too old for it anymore. I'm sure he's a sweet, kindly grandpa but, I don't think he can keep up with the younger people and what it takes to run the US.


That would make old Ron just like Obama and Bush, only they didn't have age as an excuse.Pour Wine

Guest
Posted: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:19:26 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
Buz wrote:


That would make old Ron just like Obama and Bush, only they didn't have age as an excuse.Pour Wine


I don't think that makes him like them at all. I just don't think he has the wit(I don't mean comedic) or stamina to do it. I've watched him speak and his thought process is too slow for him to be effective,imo. You can see his mental acuity just isn't there and I think that's very important for running the country.
CharlotteRusse1
Posted: Monday, March 05, 2012 8:58:01 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/9/2011
Posts: 202
Location: United States
I posted this somewhere else too.

If the religiously affiliated secular organization (e.g. hospital or school *not* church) doesn't want to have their insurance plan (not them) cover normal preventative care like contraception they can just *not provide insurance* and pay a penalty instead.

They want to take federal funds. They want to be tax-exempt. They want to hire non-Catholics. They want to serve non-Catholics. They want to provide an employee insurance benefit to attract employees.

They just don't want to play by the rules all the other employers have to.

They want, in effect, to give their female employees who don't want to reproduce a pay cut compared to everyone else for being female employees who don't want to reproduce.

That's attempting to enforce religious beliefs via financial coercion. Believe me, there are plenty of low-wage workers with jobs in Catholic-affiliated schools and hospitals.

Writer of amateur erotica since 2011..See the latest at:

Buz
Posted: Monday, March 05, 2012 9:02:24 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,798
Location: Atlanta, United States
chefkathleen wrote:


I don't think that makes him like them at all. I just don't think he has the wit(I don't mean comedic) or stamina to do it. I've watched him speak and his thought process is too slow for him to be effective,imo. You can see his mental acuity just isn't there and I think that's very important for running the country.


I agree with you CK, but even with that slowed acuity he might still be sharper than Bush and Obama. And that is and has been a real sad thing for all of us.

Guest
Posted: Monday, March 05, 2012 10:57:48 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
i completely agree with you Buz...CK sure instead of Ron Paul as the obvious choice, lets vote for camp Romney who only believes in "outsourcing" all of America to the lowest bidder or the wing nut Santorum or Newt Gingrich (who will easily change alliances n rhetoric as easily as he changes wives) or Obama (who will never embrace a "balanced budget" platform and whose exhortations to "change we can" has literally not materialized for millions of Americans...i am in my early 30's yet i still identify with Ron Paul...he is the only true conservative who despises the war mongering of the hawks and republicans as equally as he despises fiscal impropriety in the form of "living beyond ones means" n the social programs endorsed by the democrats. its high time that America learn that true conservatism starts with fiscal and financial conservatism at home. there is a new threat looming in the near future and they own most of American debt and treasuries and that is China!! the only reason why the US won against the Iron Curtain and the Cold War was we outspent the "Reds"...this time though they own our asses and our debt!!
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 8:48:24 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,338
Buz wrote:


I agree with you CK, but even with that slowed acuity he might still be sharper than Bush and Obama. And that is and has been a real sad thing for all of us.


Oop man isn't that the truth!
I just don't like that he doesn't want abortion and thinks all the troops all over the world should be here in the states. That's just stupid.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.