Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Presidential Religious Affiliation

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
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:15 PM
Original message
Presidential Religious Affiliation
Here's a few to get started:

George Washington – Deist; Episcopalian (VA)
John Adams – Unitarian (MA)
Thomas Jefferson – Deist; Unitarian (VA)
Abraham Lincoln – Deist; Presbyterian; no personal affiliation known (KY/IN/IL)
Andrew Johnson – no affiliation (NC/TN)
Ulysses S. Grant – no affiliation known (OH)

source...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. List by affiliation
Edited on Fri May-05-06 02:54 PM by Proud_Democratt
List of Presidential religious affiliations (by religion)
Baptist
Warren Harding
Harry Truman
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton (Southern Baptist)

Congregationalist
Calvin Coolidge

Deist
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Tyler
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as without affiliation)

Disciples of Christ
James Garfield
Lyndon Johnson
Ronald Reagan

Dutch Reformed
Martin Van Buren
Theodore Roosevelt

Episcopalian—the first 7 listed below were all from Virginia, where the Episcopal Church was the state church until 1786.
George Washington (primarily Deist)
Thomas Jefferson (primarily Deist)
James Madison (primarily Deist)
James Monroe (primarily Deist)
William Henry Harrison (planning on joining?)
John Tyler (primarily Deist)
Zachary Taylor (Deist?)
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush

Methodist
James Polk (originally Presbyterian)
Ulysses Grant (also listed as without affiliation)
William McKinley
George W. Bush

Presbyterian
Andrew Jackson
James Polk (later Methodist)
James Buchanan
Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Woodrow Wilson
Dwight D. Eisenhower (originally Jehovah's Witnesses)

Quaker
Herbert Hoover
Richard Nixon

Roman Catholic
John F. Kennedy

Jehovah's Witnesses
Dwight D. Eisenhower (later Presbyterian)

Unitarian—Unitarian Universalism is the religion generally associated today with those whose ideology developed from Deism.
John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Millard Fillmore
William Howard Taft

Presidents without affiliation
Abraham Lincoln (also listed as Deist)
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant (also listed as Methodist)
Rutherford Hayes



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Some changes,
First Ronald Reagan was raised a Catholic and stayed a Catholic Till he Married Nancy.

Second, While his law partner after his death would say Lincoln was an Atheist, no one else makes this claim (and his law partner was an Atheist). The fact his law partner was an Atheist can lead to two explanations for the partner's view on Lincoln, first he was using Lincoln to advance his own atheistic beliefs, Second, Lincoln being a Politician may have said to his law partner he did not believe in God as part of having to deal with his partner (and the partner read to much into attempt to remain friends). I lean to the latter, but I can not rule out the former. The reason for this compared to Stephen Douglas Lincoln used a lot of biblical terms in his speeches and in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, Something Douglas did NOT do. Douglas, while married to a Catholic (and his children were all raised Catholic) seems to be more of a Atheist than Lincoln ever was (Including telling a Catholic Bishop, on his death bed, to leave rather than receive the last rites).

Third, Washington seems only to have been a member of the Presbyterian Church as long as it provided his connections and political advantage from the church office he held. Once the church was disestablished he quit being a member. On the other side, he attended religious services all his life, not every Sunday, but on a steady, but irregular basis.

Politics are a big factor in a lot of Religious affiliation, one of the bests example is Andrew Jackson who had no religious affiliation till AFTER his Presidency. During the election of 1828 his wife Rachel asked him to join a Church and he said no, NOT because he did not believe, but he feared his enemy would attack him for joining a Church as an election gimmick. Even after his wife's death he did not join till he had served his two terms of Office and only then joined the Presbyterian Church (and stayed an active member going to mass every Sunday till the day he died).

While Stephen Douglas is the closest thing a a Catholic Candidate before Al Smith's Nomination of 1928, George C. Blaine had been raised Catholic and had buried his parents in a Catholic Church in Brownsville Pennsylvania. he converted to a Protestant Religion for political proposes (This is for a Candidate who lost the Catholic Vote when, after attending a political event and leaving do to a conflict in Schedule, after he left one of his Supporters in the 1884 Election in that same meeting called the Democrats the party of "Rum, Romanism and Rebellion". This was rapidly spread to the Catholic Parts of New York City which cost him New York State and thus the Election. Some people to this day believe he was Catholic all his life but being Catholic even for a Republican was a kiss of death if you wanted to be President.

My point here is, except for rare times in US History, one's religion was NOT viewed as important except when it pointed to a lack of reputation or foreign entanglement. Even here the failure to go to Church was NOT viewed as a bad thing if you had a good moral compass. Blaine's biggest problem was NOT his being a lapsed Catholic, but being one of the most corrupt person of his age (He was tied in with the Credit Mobile Scandals and other Scandals of the Grant Administration).

As to Deism, while popular in the Colonial and Revolutionary period, seems to fall out of favor as a "Religion" in the post-Jefferson period thus to call anyone after Jackson a Deist is pushing the term beyond its historical limits. Most non-affiliated people (Except for the ruling elites of the Revolutionary period who if NOT affiliated with any religion tended to call themselves Deists) seems to be Christians in the broad sense of the term, but NOT attached to any one branch of Christianity. This seems to be tied in with the movement of people and thus the lack of roots in any one community than any lack of religion (People tend to forget Churches are NOT only places of worship but also places to meet people, to be a member of the Community you join that church, if you move you may join another church to join that Community). This weak link between people and any one branch of Christianity can best be seen in the Americans who moved to Texas in the period 1820-1836. One of the requirements to move to Texas while it was under Mexican Rule was One had to be Catholic. Thus technically most (if not all) of the Americans in the Alamo where CATHOLIC (as were the Mexican troops under Santa Anna). Protestants did show up to fight but like the Texas's Catholic they were more Christian in the broad sense of the Word than Protestant of Catholics (And given the number of fundamentalist Protestant in Texas today, a shock to learn how many were at least nominally Catholic in the Alamo).

My point here is do NOT read to much into a person's alleged Religious affiliation. A person's Religious Affiliation may be deep, it may be non-existent, but what a person Claims his religious affiliation to be can be affected by how he want to present himself to his neighbors AND if he wants to get votes. The real key is what was his REAL moral compass? Did he believe in helping his fellow man, or did he believe in Social Darwinism (Which claims connections to Darwin but has few connections except the name).

A second problem is at what stage in his life are you looking at the person? Charles Darwin had a Degree in Theology, but died probably a Agnostic. During his trip on the to the Galapagos Islands, he was the Chaplain for his ship. People change, as did Lincoln who is quoted a saying he was NOT a Christian when his son died in 1862 but was one by late 1864 do to how the Civil War was progressing (Lincoln also suffered from severe Depression all of his life and this may explain some of his switches as to religion over his life time).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zebedeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. A small quibble
Edited on Fri May-05-06 08:52 PM by Zebedeo
You said:

Social Darwinism (Which claims connections to Darwin but has few connections except the name).


I am afraid you are engaging in revisionist history. Darwin was a Social Darwinist of the first order. He was as racist as can be. He regarded nonwhite people such as Negroes to be a sub-species, below Caucasians and above gorillas. He also regarded the Irish as an inferior race. There needn't be any dispute about this. He wrote a book on it. All you have to do is read his own writing to find out exactly what he thought about "inferior races" and what should happen to them. He advocated eugenics and supported the idea of a race war to exterminate the nonwhite races, for the benefit of the white race.

"In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate."

Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man, pp.343



At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Descent, p. 178


"A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."

Descent, Ch. 5


"I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilized nations may be worth adding . . . With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. . . .The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected "

Descent of Man, Chapter Five


"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."

Descent of Man, Chapter Seven





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I always wondered why Bryan introduced the Descent of man into the Scope
Edited on Fri May-05-06 11:36 PM by happyslug
In the play "Inherit the wind" the authors of the play use different names for the Characters do to the radical changes the Author of the Play made to change the Trial from a debate on what to do when Majority Rule and Science come into dispute to one of an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism i.e. attacks on freedom of Speech and association. I will use the Name Bryan for both William Jennings Bryan in the Actual Scopes Monkey Trial (hereafter refered to as the "Trial") and the Prosecutor in the Play "Inherit the Wind", (Hereafter refered to as the "Play") AND Darrow for the Defense Attorney in both the play and trial, and Scopes for the name of the Teacher in both the Play and the trial (Even through different names are used in the Play from the Trial).

Anyway one of the changes between the Play and the Trial was in the play BRYAN is shown REJECTING Darwin's book, while in the trial BRYAN was the one who introduced Darwin's book into the trial (And had read it over 20 years before and commented on it for that 20 year period). On the other hand Darrow had tried to read Darwin's books but only read 50 or so pages before he gave up (Darrow was NEVER considered a Great intellect, unlike Bryan, Darrow's Strength was his ability to Cross-Examine people and to speak for hours at a time without notes. Some historian believe that Darrow took the Scopes Case to show he was a better public speaker than Bryan, who was considered the premier public speaker of his time period.

Anyway, my point is why Darrow and the Scopes Defense really did NOT want Darwin introduced into the Scopes Trial, and gladly accepted the Judge's Decision to accept affidavits of the Defense's Experts (Most of whom were advocated of Eugenics). Eugenics were still popular in the 1920s (Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Homes was one of its advocates and was still on the court during the 1920s). By the time the play "Inherit the Wind" was written Eugenics was discredited (Do to the abuses of the Nazis), thus in the play Eugenics are ignored as is the various non-Nazi advocates of Eugenics. Furthermore by the time the Play was written Racism was looked down upon, so it had to be avoided in the play (as you pointed out Darwin was an advocate of Social Darwinism).

A further problem for the authors of the play was that the ACLU, who funded Scopes Defense, wanted Darrow Fired for Darrow was using the trial to Attack religion which the ACLU did NOT want to do in the Trial. On the other hand Scopes had read about the Loeb Murder Trial the year before and agreed to let Darrow be part of the Defense team. Scopes insisted that Darrow stay part of the Defense Team even through the ACLU was paying for his defense and the ACLU wanted to Fire Darrow. This internal dispute had to be avoided in the play.

Thus Darwin's opinion as to race was a problem at the Scopes trial, this problem was avoided in the Play but like a lot of things about that play, radical changes had to be made to the story line to fit the agenda of the authors of the play (Which was NOT to attack Bryan but to attack McCarthyism), one of those changes was WHO introduced Darwin into the Trial and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zebedeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-06-06 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Interesting points
Thank you for that illuminating post.

Unfortunately, many who have seen the movie or the play "Inherit the Wind" believe that it accurately portrays the Scopes trial, with only the names changed. It doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-06-06 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I have aways called the Play Slander on Bryan
Edited on Sat May-06-06 10:53 PM by happyslug
But legally you can not Slander the Dead, thus you can do anything to a historical figure which is what the authors of the Play did in "Inherit the Wind".

Copy of the Darrow's examination of Bryan:
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/Darrow.htm1
(There are a lot of Edited Transcripts on the net, I like this one for it mentions Bryan's citation of Einstein's theory of Relativity, which most transcripts on the net omits among other omissions).

Other cites about the Scopes Monkey Trial:
http://www.bradburyac.mistral.co.uk/tennesse.html
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/scopes.htm
http://www.bryan.edu/1659.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zebedeo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-07-06 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Thank you for those links
I read the transcript in full. It is so different from the movie (I haven't seen the play) that it is astonishing. Bryan had the upper hand throughout, and Darrow was a sputtering, racist blowhard bastard, who persisted in irrelevant questioning.

Take, for example, this exchange:

BRYAN: Buddhism is an agnostic religion.

DARROW: To what? What do you mean by "agnostic"?

BRYAN: I don't know.

DARROW: You don't know what you mean?

BRYAN: That is what "agnosticism" is -- "I don't know". When I was in Rangoon, Burma, one of the Buddhists told me that they were going to send a delegation to an agnostic congress that was to be held soon at Rome and I read in an official document...

DARROW: Do you remember his name?

BRYAN: No sir, I don't.

DARROW: What did he look like? How tall was he?

BRYAN: I think he was about as tall as you, but not so good-looking.

DARROW: Do you know about how old a man he was? Do you know whether he was old enough to know what he was talking about?

BRYAN: He seemed to be old enough to know what he was talking about.

DARROW: If Your Honor please, instead of answering plain specific questions we are permitting the witness to regale the crowd with what some black man said to him when he was travelling in Rangoon, India.

It must have been infuriating for the great Clarence Darrow to have to listen to what some "black man" said about Buddhism. William Jennings Bryan mopped the floor with Darrow. It's amazing that this mythology has developed which regards Clarence Darrow as some kind of great lawyer. After reading that transcript, it is obvious to me that Darrow just plain sucked as a lawyer. Any intelligent lawyer would realize when he is getting crushed by an expert witness and do something different. Instead, Darrow just kept doing the same thing. He kept lobbing the same pitches to Bryan, who every time, knocked them out of the park.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:23 PM
Response to Original message
2. so some of our
founding fathers were Unitarians that makes sense. Our local Unitarian church allow a local Wiccian coven to use its facilities when the weather is too nasty for circle to be held outside.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arwalden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. I Wonder Which Presidents Were Atheists?
Not that any of them ever publicly admitted it (that would make them "unelectable") but I think it's not at all unlikely that we've had an atheist US president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I would bet on Lincoln and Taylor for being closet-Atheists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
derby378 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Lincoln was an atheist for much of his life
He apparently embraced a form of deism in his later years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 03:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Franklin Pierce was essentially an atheist when he took office
Although a member of the Episcopal Church in his younger days, he swore off religion after typhus took his two young sons. He was one of two who chose to affirm the Oath of Office rather than swear (the other one was Herbert Hoover, whose Quaker beliefs prohibited swearing any oath) and it appears that he did not use a Bible when taking the Oath. The only record of church attendance during his presidency was as part of semi-state functions, never as a matter of personal choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 05:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. Teach me something
Edited on Fri May-05-06 06:14 PM by TallahasseeGrannie
because I know there is more to "Deist" than I know. But how can one be a Deist AND an Episcopalian?

I'm kind of wondering if that is what I am, although I do believe in Christ. So maybe not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. A Deist believes that reason should
Edited on Fri May-05-06 05:51 PM by Proud_Democratt
be the basis of belief, rather than tradition or revelation, which may or may not lead to joining a religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. But doesn't that then beg the question
how can a Deist believe in God, who can't be proved through logic or reason? (at least not that I have ever heard)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I really couldn't answer your question, T. Grannie,
I don't understand the aspects of it, myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. My belief doesn't stem
much from reason, although I have a few little nuggets I comfort myself with. But Trotsky and Goblin would rip 'em up in no time flat and I'd be back to intuition again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Your nuggets of thought on theism are from your wisdom
Edited on Fri May-05-06 07:00 PM by Proud_Democratt
and past experience. Some could learn from your example. I ALWAYS respect the ones that live by word.
You don't offend me with your beliefs. The ones that "shove it down your throat" and don't practice their preaching are the people that make me angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Kind words
there really are a lot of us out here. Our noisier "brethren" get more attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud_Democratt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. KInd words for kind people...
however, and you may know, there are some that bring out the worst in me. I oppose imbalance in politics, power, and religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TallahasseeGrannie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-06-06 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. I oppose imbalance in all things
and this is a very imbalanced time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-05-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Deists believe that one can arrive at God through logic and reason
The philosophical tenets of Deism arose as part of a movement towards rationalism and away from blind faith (which Deist philosophers called "fideism.") The premise is that the human mind can observe the world, apply reason and come to valid conclusions about the world, and that this process holds true as a way one can come to valid conclusions about God. Given the lack of direct evidence -- as there is for, say, the weather, the chemistry of turning iron in to steel or the anatomy of a man -- Deists look to the world as a whole, seeking God not in any one thing but in the sum of all things, in the interconnectedness of all things, and in the overall complexity of the universe.

You might find the Wikipedia entry for Deism worth a look.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-07-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. A key aspect of Deism, as I understand it....
Is that it attempts to free science from any religious trappings. They assume the existance of 'God' but think of it as a creator that started the whole universe up, and let it run like a clockwork or mechanism without further interference on the deity's part. A Deist would have no problem with evolution, since they would propose that 'God' set that process in motion and today's ecology is the result. They would not be literalists about the Bible or any other religious teachings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-07-06 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. They believe in a "higher power".
Without sectarian spin OR definition of any kind.
A non-specific "creator".
They generally believed that they had free will.
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, 10:43 PM
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