Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
panzerfaust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:41 AM
Original message
Irish atheists challenge new blasphemy laws
Source: Guardian (UK)

Secular campaigners in the Irish Republic defied a strict new blasphemy law which came into force today by publishing a series of anti-religious quotations online and promising to fight the legislation in court.

The new law, which was passed in July, means that blasphemy in Ireland is now a crime punishable with a fine of up to €25,000 (£22,000).

It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted"...

...Nugent {Michael Nugent, the group's chair} said: "This new law is both silly and dangerous. It is silly because medieval religious laws have no place in a modern secular republic, where the criminal law should protect people and not ideas. And it is dangerous because it incentives religious outrage, and because Islamic states led by Pakistan are already using the wording of this Irish law to promote new blasphemy laws at UN level.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/01/irish-atheists-challenge-blasphemy-law



"Blasphemy"

Truly, a victimless crime.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
1. These laws don't make a lot of sense.
I would think that the tenets of most religions are themselves blasphemous to at least some other religions. Are people of religion X going to be charged with a crime for saying that adherents of religion Y are going to hell?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Amazing that the Irish believe enough to enact new laws against blasphemy in 2009, but
don't believe enough to feel that God is capable of dealing with blasphemers as He sees fit, without their help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. That's an excellent point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaded_old_cynic Donating Member (82 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. Well Said.
Good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
4. FSM adherents should demand that all pasta be treated as sacred.
They should come out with a set of strict rules for pasta handling and demand that they be obeyed under this blasphemy law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. What the fuck is "FSM"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Self-delete
Edited on Sat Jan-02-10 09:39 AM by timtom
due to massive stupidity on my part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. Sure...Why respond civilly
when you can ridicule religon and DU believers instead?:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Here is something for you...


You NEED this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #34
39. And here's Something for you...
Edited on Mon Jan-04-10 06:49 AM by whathehell
:hi: Goodbye Biyotch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. I cannot believe
you actually spelled out the word "biyotch" and used it in any context whatsoever. Your level of maturity must be even lower than I originally gave you credit for, and that is truly saying something.

Just what are you trying to accomplish here? Discussion certainly can't be it, so what could it be? Demonstrating to everyone here that your teachers and parents were failures? Making a complete ass out of yourself? I doubt you'd admit to these goals, but you're certainly succeeding in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proletariatprincess Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. Flying Spagetti Monster. Google it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
iris27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
38. Flying Spaghetti Monster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. That's a good one!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Submariner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. Makes me greatly appreciate freedom of speech in the U.S.
I would otherwise be fined into bankruptcy and beyond making fun of their god and the other imaginary sky people.

I think Sister Perpetual Agony taught me that blasphemy was only a venial sin. At £22,000 a pop, it's expensiveness makes it a mortal sin by Ireland standards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
canetoad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
7. They should be fined
the full €25,000 for using 'incentives' as a verb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
penndragon69 Donating Member (409 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
8. This is what happens
when you allow the Church / state boundaries to be crossed.
Many of our forefathers came to the new world to get away from repressive
state religion like this.

But do you think that they will fine Believers for attacking and insulting Non believers..
of course not because they don't count.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
timtom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. This is not a matter of "allowing" any boundaries to be crossed.
Ireland has been practically a theocratic state for...well, for longer than DU has been extant.

The Catholic Church has traditionally been an integral part of Irish life for a very, very long time.

Similarly, the Church (first Catholic, then Anglican) has been institutionalized nationally in Great Britain.

Those upstart whippersnappers, the Founding Fathers, felt that the State (nation) must not be allowed to legislate on matters of religion. This is the extent of our "separation of church and state".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rd_kent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. But you forgot to add that they also didn't want religion to be part of legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. A corrupt cabal of Child Sodomizers applaud a few Shitty Laws
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #15
35. Um, Ireland separated church and state in 1869
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proletariatprincess Donating Member (527 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Hooray for blasphemy!
I'm all for it...we need more of it.
I am shocked and outraged that an enlightened country like Ireland would pass such a ridiculous law and I applaud Nugent and his supporters for challenging it.
I thought that given the horrible crimes committed by the clergy Ireland was finally getting out from the oppressive yoke of the Roman Catholic church and moving away from such religious nonsense. This silly law is probably a backlash to the strides Ireland has taken recently to separate itself from the church.
Religious people need to understand how offensive we secularists find their behavior and proselytizing. Turn about is fair play...and about time. Way past time. The world will be better for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dmr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
16. The athiest web site is down
http://blasphemy.ie/2010/01/01/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes/

From the OP's link, here's some of what it said:

Richard Dawkins: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Björk: "The Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren't lesser beings, they're just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists."

Frank Zappa: "To hang all this desperate sociology on the idea of The Cloud Guy who has The Big Book, who knows if you've been bad or good – and cares about any of it – is the chimpanzee part of the brain working."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pokercat999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. I think I've found the cause of this law.
:beer:

Don't start, I'm American-Irish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
20. criminal law should protect people and not ideas
What are they thinking in Ireland to pass such silly law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:53 AM
Response to Original message
21. seems there has been a change in the grip the vatican has on Ireland

nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
22. weak superstitions are afraid of criticism, and as usual, must punish non believers nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whathehell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Yes...like the weak atheists who are uncomfortable being a minority
and so punish believers via endless ridicule and hate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Would you like some cheese?
This post is amazing. It demonstrates the mentality mentioned by the post above it completely, and without an apparent shred of irony, sarcasm, or satire.

Just wow...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
27. Blasphemy laws.....
...designed by ignoramuses.

- For ignoramuses.

K&R

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
caitxrawks Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
30. yeah...wow.
I guarantee you a slew of conservative Christians here in the US went "OMG YAYYYY!" when this law was passed. I didn't have a clue about it.

Pisses me off. It makes me want to go to Ireland and stand on a streetcorner with a sign that says "MY NAME IS CAITLIN AND I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
47of74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
31. Blasphemy laws make as much sense as a screen door on a battleship...
...submarine, starship, or Santa's workshop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
32. Why was this story shunted off to the religion ghetto?
Edited on Sat Jan-02-10 08:36 PM by dorkulon
It is news--not putting it in LBN means fewer DUers even know about the Irish law, which in my estimation is important enough to know about, whether you like it or not.

But since it's here--anyone who thinks punishing unpopular speech is a good idea is either an idiot or a fascist, or both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Might be worth a PM to the mods.
It's free speech issue, not a religion issue. At the very least, it merits a repost in GD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 05:50 AM
Response to Original message
36. (xpost from GD) This may involve peculiarities of Irish politics in unexpected ways:
The Irish laws were originally based on the English law. The last imprisonment in the UK for blasphemy was John Gott in 1921; the last blasphemy conviction in the UK was in 1977; and the UK blasphemy law was finally abolished in 2008

There seems to have been no successful prosecution for blasphemy in Ireland within living memory; however, blasphemy is explicitly illegal under the 1937 constitution, though an unsuccessful prosecution in 1999 produced a Supreme Court decision indicating no one knew "of what the offence of blasphemy consists." The expected route of blasphemy law enforcement was the 1961 defamation law, which allowed for up to seven years imprisonment. With Parliament's abolition of blasphemy laws in 2008, the Irish set out to consider how to abolish their own: the point of view that won was, not to amend the constitution, but to repeal the prison sentences of the 1961 defamation law and redraw the law with such explicit exemptions as would make successful prosecution very difficult

In view of the context, I predict that this action by Atheist Ireland will provoke no prosecutorial response

The Irish Times - Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Blasphemy provisions clash with Constitution
... The common law historically punished blasphemy against Christianity as one aspect of the crime of libel. In a successful prosecution against Gay News magazine in 1977, the English courts confirmed the continuing existence of the crime. In an unsuccessful attempt to begin proceedings against Salman Rushdie for The Satanic Verses in 1991, they held that it did not protect Islam. Most recently, in another unsuccessful attempt to commence a prosecution against Jerry Springer - The Opera in 2007, they held that the modern justification for the crime lies in the risk of public disorder. The European Court of Human Rights has held that, although blasphemy can infringe the right to freedom of expression, it can be justified, provided that there is a good reason for the infringement. In the Jerry Springer case, the court held that this reason must be the risk of public disorder, and not the mere fact of insulting religious beliefs, however deeply held. The blasphemy provisions of the Defamation Bill make it an offence to cause outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of a religion by intentionally publishing material that grossly abuses or insults matters held sacred by their religion. This is actually quite narrowly drawn, and there is a further saver for publications of genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value. Moreover, the maximum €25,000 fine is relatively light. It is therefore neither a trap for the unwary, nor a charter for religious cranks, nor even a check upon valuable public discourse. Nevertheless, the offence is still of dubious constitutionality ... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0722/1224251063583.html

The Irish Times - Friday, May 1, 2009
Position of blasphemy in our Constitution cannot be ignored
< DERMOT AHERN>
... THE 1961 Defamation Act provides that a person can be both fined and imprisoned for a maximum of seven years for the crime of blasphemous libel. The Government is moving to reform that Act, while respecting our Constitution, which requires that blasphemy must be punishable by law. My intention is to remove the possibility of prison sentences and private prosecutions for blasphemy, currently provided for in Irish law. The only credible alternative to this move is a blasphemy referendum which I consider, in the current circumstances, a costly and unwarranted diversion ... Among my proposed amendments was a proposal in regard to the treatment of the issue of blasphemy in our law. It is wrong to state that we have no law in this area and that I am creating a new offence. Currently, section 13 of the 1961 Defamation Act provides for sanctions, both monetary and prison, where a person might be convicted of publishing a blasphemous libel. That section will be repealed, along with that whole Act by the new legislation ... I have taken the opportunity of ensuring that private prosecutions for blasphemy can no longer be brought by ensuring it is not a summary offence and that all prosecutions have to be brought by the independent prosecutor, the DPP. I have also removed the punishment of imprisonment and instead imposed a fine. The Labour Party in its proposed suggestion in regard to my amendment does not propose deletion of it, but rather to make a proposal as to the penalty involved ... The revised provision in regard to blasphemy requires at least three elements to be present: that the material be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred by a religion; that it must actually cause outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion; and, crucially, that there be an intent to cause such outrage. Such intent was not previously required ... http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html


... In 1855, the burning of a Bible led to the last blasphemy prosecution in Ireland before the founding of the Free State. Prosecutions for blasphemy in Ireland effectively ceased when the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869 ... http://blasphemy.ie/history-of-irish-blasphemy-law /


... The .. Irish Constitution .. contains provisions which state that "the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law" – but there is no actual law against blasphemy. On the single occasion that an attempt was made to prosecute a satirical Irish newspaper under this provision - Corway v Independent Newspapers, in 1999 - the Supreme Court eventually concluded that it was not possible to say "of what the offence of blasphemy consists". For these reasons, the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, last year recommended that the Constitution be amended to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafted to bring it into line of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, providing a positive right to freedom of expression ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/08/ireland_blashpemy


Obituary: Denis Lemon
PETER BURTON
Saturday, 23 July 1994
Denis Edward Lemon, newspaper editor and restaurateur: born Bradford-on-Avon 11 August 1945; Editor, Gay News 1972-82; died Exmouth 21 July 1994.
AFTER his trial in 1977 at the Old Bailey on a charge of blasphemous libel, Denis Lemon became something of an international celebrity: he was the first man to be convicted in Britain on such a charge in more than 50 years ... He published Kirkup's poem in 1976 because he thought 'the message and intention of the poem was to celebrate the absolute universality of God's love', although he admitted it was 'probably not a great work of literature'. Not everyone viewed the poem in the same light as Lemon and an outraged reader dispatched a copy to Mary Whitehouse who instigated a prosecution for blasphemous libel. Judge Alan King- Hamilton disallowed expert testimony on the literary, sociological or theological qualities of the poem - Margaret Drabble and Bernard Levin were allowed to appear as character witnesses on Lemon's part. John Mortimer appeared for the defence, but Gay News Ltd and Denis Lemon were found guilty - Lemon being fined pounds 500 and sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months and subsequently quashed by the Court of Appeal ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-denis-lemon-1415565.html

The gay poem that broke blasphemy laws
By Staff Writer, PinkNews.co.uk • January 10, 2008 - 12:50
... Mary Whitehouse, founder of the National Viewers and Listeners Association, (NVLA) announced her intention to sue in December 1976 after she read the poem entitled The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name by James Kirkup, published in Gay News. Denis Lemon was sentenced to nine months suspended imprisonment and fined £500 ... An appeal against the conviction was rejected by the House of Lords. It still 'illegal' to publish the poem in the UK ... http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6519.html


... In 2002, a public reading of the poem, on the steps of St. Martin-in-the-Fields church in Trafalgar Square, failed to lead to any prosecution ... http://travors.com/post/311346765/atheist-ireland-publishes-25-blasphemous-quotes



Britain's House of Lords abolishes blasphemy laws
By Kim Murphy
Los Angeles Times / March 6, 2008
LONDON - A funny thing happened last November when Britain launched a righteous protest over the arrest in Sudan of a British school teacher who was accused of insulting religion by naming a class teddy bear Mohammed. The Sudanese ambassador was summoned; Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued a protest. It didn't take long, though, for someone to point out that Downing Street was standing on diplomatic quicksand: Britain itself has a law making blasphemy a crime. Thus began a period of collective soul-searching on free speech and secularism, traditional values and the church that anoints Britain's queen. It culminated yesterday in a 148-87 vote in the House of Lords to abolish the laws on blasphemy after a wrenching, two-hour debate ... http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2008/03/06/britains_house_of_lords_abolishes_blasphemy_laws
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
37. (xpost from GD thread) Link to the text of the 2009 Defamation Act:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0031/index.html

At issue is Section 36:

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if —
(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and
(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.
(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence under this section for the defendant to prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.
(4) In this section “ religion ” does not include an organisation or cult —
(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or
(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation —
(i) of its followers, or
(ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.


So for the purposes of successful prosecution, one must deliberately set out to outrage a large number of people, one must succeed in outraging those people, and one must do so without introducing any genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 10th 2024, 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC