Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 6:57:20 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
I am a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ (or try my best to be). However, I am not a member of any Roman Catholic church, any Protestant denomination or an unaffiliated Christian church. I am not a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Quaker, a Jew, a Moslem, a Buddhist, a Pagan, a Scientologist, a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or a Wiccan. I am also not an atheist. I try to live my personal life based on my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The only way I “preach” is by my living example and by exchanging ideas and opinions in both personal and Internet discussion.

Is it possible for me, and for all American citizens, to both have freedom OF religion (the right to practice and live my faith, as long as that practice does not adversely impact my fellow citizens) AND freedom FROM religion (the right not to be forced by civil and criminal law to follow the teachings of someone else’s faith or the beliefs of someone else’s atheism/non-faith)?

Or does freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion mean that I cannot practice my faith as I do now?

If my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ allows my wife and I to use artificial means of birth control (birth control pills, IUDs, condoms), shouldn’t freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion mean that a politician who follows a different religion (i.e. Roman Catholicism) should not be able to pass a law making sale or use of artificial birth control devices a crime?

If my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ does not require me to circumcise my new-born son, shouldn’t freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion mean that a politician who follows a different religion (i.e. Judaism) should not be able to pass a law requiring all male children born in the United States to be circumcised?

If my understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ tells me to wear a cross around my neck that is visible to anyone who might look at me, shouldn’t freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion mean that a politician who is an atheist should not be able to pass a law requiring that all religious symbols must be hidden from public view?

Is it possible to have both freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion at the same time in the same country?


_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 7:09:10 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
Of course it's possible. The only reason it ever gets presented as a contradiction is because certain chiselling shits who think that their beliefs should be prioritised over everybody else's like to insist that unless they're the ones getting all of the special treatment and perks for their religion, then those will be received by evil Religions instead.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 7:21:39 AM   
ClassIsInSession


Posts: 305
Joined: 7/26/2010
Status: offline
The key problem with most "religious" people is not the religion they believe in, but their own insecurity. The triad of Judea/Christian/Islamic belief really stresses free will, and the responsibility for it. It is the inherent insecurity of the practitioners that cause them to feel the need to enforce their beliefs on others as a means of justifying/solidifying their own wavering faith.

As a Christian of no denomination myself, I have always believed the teaching of Christ are best spread through demonstrative action, beginning with loving your neighbor as yourself. Christ never said love thy Christian, caucasion, wealthy, straight, or any other identifier..he left it simply Love thy neighbor.

In truth, I find the actions of other "Christians" ramming their beliefs down other's throats through bible waving on the street corners, legislating morality or simply pointing the finger in a judgmental way a far cry from what I believe is the inherent message of the New Testament.

Having friends of many different faiths, or the lack of one at all beyond themselves or the general good of humanity, I think the separation of church and state, and the co-existence of freedom of and from religion needs only one governing rule, do what you will as long as it hurts no one else. For any who may recognize it, it's a pagan paradigm, and a very simple yet profound way of being.

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 7:47:08 AM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline
The issue is proselytizing. My freedom from religion would mean that others don't try to shove their religion down my throat. However, many christians do anything they can to do so, which is part of their "freedom of religion."
A good example is prayer in schools. The christian argument is that the prayer can be non-denominational, and that jews and athiests kids can leave the room.
When they did this in the 1930's, the christian kids would beat up the kids who left the room.
But here is my proposal, which would, if it were the only way to have prayer in school, cause most christians to shut up about it forever. Poll the local high school and find out the religions the actual kids want to pray to. Figure out the ratio, and have an appropriate prayer (or lecture on why god doesn't exist for the athiests) that all the kids repeat each day based on the ratios of the faiths.
Pretty sure once the christians figure out that there are enough kids who will claim to be satanists that their good kids will have to praise satan at least once, that they will cut the crap.

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to ClassIsInSession)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 8:02:09 AM   
dharkling


Posts: 17
Joined: 2/3/2012
Status: offline
SoftBonds, how is your intolerance any better than anyone else's?

---

When I was a child, we didn't have "prayer" in our school but we did have "quiet time". For just a few brief moments the entire school would be silent. Those who wanted to pray could do so, silently, to whatever god or gods (even Satan!) they chose. If you didn't want to pray, you didn't have to. You just sat there and thought about whatever.

Sometimes I prayed. Sometimes I didn't. The biggest thing I took away from that experience was respect. I learned that you can respect the beliefs of others without agreeing with them. Sometimes its okay to just keep your mouth shut. And frankly, it was easier to focus on learning after having a minute or two to just be still.

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 8:43:15 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

The issue is proselytizing. My freedom from religion would mean that others don't try to shove their religion down my throat. However, many christians do anything they can to do so, which is part of their "freedom of religion."
A good example is prayer in schools. The christian argument is that the prayer can be non-denominational, and that jews and athiests kids can leave the room.
When they did this in the 1930's, the christian kids would beat up the kids who left the room.

You should make that when that was done in the 1970's and 1980's the christian kids would beat up the kids who left the room. I was there and have the scars to prove it.

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 10:08:52 AM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dharkling

SoftBonds, how is your intolerance any better than anyone else's?

---

When I was a child, we didn't have "prayer" in our school but we did have "quiet time". For just a few brief moments the entire school would be silent. Those who wanted to pray could do so, silently, to whatever god or gods (even Satan!) they chose. If you didn't want to pray, you didn't have to. You just sat there and thought about whatever.

Sometimes I prayed. Sometimes I didn't. The biggest thing I took away from that experience was respect. I learned that you can respect the beliefs of others without agreeing with them. Sometimes its okay to just keep your mouth shut. And frankly, it was easier to focus on learning after having a minute or two to just be still.


Nothing against "quiet time," in school.
As for my intolerance of christians shoving their beliefs down my throat, well, I guess I'm an asshole.
I mean, imagine my face got in the way of you exercising your right to swing your fist around at will, and then I got all mad about it?

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to dharkling)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 10:17:52 AM   
Fightdirecto


Posts: 1101
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
As for my intolerance of christians shoving their beliefs down my throat, well, I guess I'm an asshole.

Things change - and yet stay somewhat the same.

In the 1950's and 1960's when I was in public schools, I was physically attacked by Catholic kids for being a Protestant - and by Lutheran kids because my Dad was a Baptist minister.

And in my neigborhood - if an Episcopalian married a Methodist, it was considered a "mixed marriage", jut as "bad" as a Caucasian marrying a Black.


_____________________________

"I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.””
- Ellie Wiesel

(in reply to SoftBonds)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 10:32:33 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
I remember going to 'chapel' when I was in elementary school (first grade) in 1966/7 thru third grade 68-9.

The entire school assembled in the auditorium once a month and we were preached to. It was NOT an option. If you talked (except prayer) you got your ass paddled. They also had contests with prizes for memorizing the largest number of bible verses. They even had "Witnessing" and "Being Saved" right there on the stage. 6 year olds were pressed to follow a religion without consulting their parents.

This was well after the US Supreme Court decided that such behavior was illegal. Our local school board just didn't give a shit.

This is I feel is the scariest thing about Santorum.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 11:16:10 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
I have heard conservatives and other small thinkers say that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion"....NOT "freedom from religion".

But of course wasn`t able to describe exactly how that would work or who would enforce such a ridiculous notion.


_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 12:44:25 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Of course it's possible. The only reason it ever gets presented as a contradiction is because certain chiselling shits who think that their beliefs should be prioritised over everybody else's like to insist that unless they're the ones getting all of the special treatment and perks for their religion, then those will be received by evil Religions instead.


This is also true of those that hold all religions to be evil.

Health,
al-Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 9:29:38 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
Religion really isn't the issue per se, it's Deism vs. Theism - a deists are capable of operating on faith, and tolerating other religions, and seekers, after all, nobody really has all the answers, the only answers we can get can only be gotten through science, and while this allows to better understand "how things work" on the physical level, science is not a particularly social activity, religion is.

Theists believe in an interventionist Deity, and that tends to lead to a lot of dispute - disputes with other religion, even within a religion over who is saved, how to be saved, etc., etc., and so on, to the point of bloody war over what are, from and empirical standpoint, fanciful abstractions - empiricism would tend to look for some other kind of explanation for this sort of behavior given that any definition of salvation itself is pretty fuzzy.

In the end, you're talking about belief, by process of elimination - you can't argue the facts, there aren't any, we, as a culture, have been through all this already, hashed it out, salvation through faith, grace, or works, or some combination thereof because anything else is building sand castles.

And really, these things, faith, grace, and works are the core of all of the religious politicking going on on the religious right, theological arguments going back to the Middle ages - protestants are, for the most part do not believe in works as a path to salvation, whereas it's an integral part of the Catholic faith - and as an example, whether or not you accept works as a valid path to salvation is going have a lot of influence on how you conceptualize public policy issues.

At the moment, the dialogue is hovering around stewardship, which is the more liberal view of the environment, cultivation and conservation of resources, and dominion, which has much more possessive and rapacious connotations - you can probably guess which side fossil fuel interests are going to back.

It represent two entirely different worldviews: one is based in free will as a challenge of responsibility, the other free will as carte blanche, license to consume, deplete, ravage, and waste, and the devil take the hindmost, it's not a community, it's a death match.

Given the exemplars of this model, it sort of strains the definition to even call it religion, all it is is making a virtue of avarice; so as a religion, it's closer to some kind of orgastic phallic worship, a symbiotic parasitic bond of gluttonous jackals and anal retentive Brahmins.

What would Jesus think, I wonder?

And, what happens in the end, as a particular instantiation of a religion, reaches a point of truly mass appeal, it fragments into spitefully feuding competing sects, it's always been that way, that's how religion works - Branch Davidians, remember? They were like the tail end of a theological thread dating back to the reformation at least, propagating, mutating, and dividing, to it's terminus point.

That is one great structural weakness of theocracy as a political system, it imposes something called "Gods Law", but it isn't ever really clear exactly what that is, as it is not arrived at by reason, and consensus, a mutually acceptable compromise, but through revelation, and ultimately, Charismaticism, which is a pendulum that has a really wide fucking sweep, in the end it can't really sustain itself as anything but tribal feudalism.

Thing is, Charismaticism is fun - like Black Southern Baptists, they really do it right, they have it down to an art, and nobody worries about a Black Charismatic minister going all Jim Jones on everybody - White men can't dance so more often than not, it just turns stupid and ugly, I dunno what it is, but I'm much more comfortable with deism - or music, I'll take either one.

< Message edited by xssve -- 3/1/2012 9:32:12 PM >


_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to Aswad)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 9:40:19 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
At the root of it all of course lies the fundamental duality of matter and energy, particle wave theory if you like, life and death, but these are mysteries - better contemplated in dark caves, with some kind mojta.

From a pure social policy standpoint, I'd have to say that fighting for something usually results in better outcomes overall than fighting against something, which typically leads only to grief.


_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/1/2012 9:51:06 PM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
Another way of looking at the grace vs. fealty/conformity question, is whether you define religion as a noun or a verb - if the latter, it becomes a question of being vs. nonbeing - you are either practicing religion or you are talking about it.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 1:35:30 AM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ClassIsInSession

The key problem with most "religious" people is not the religion they believe in, but their own insecurity. The triad of Judea/Christian/Islamic belief really stresses free will, and the responsibility for it. It is the inherent insecurity of the practitioners that cause them to feel the need to enforce their beliefs on others as a means of justifying/solidifying their own wavering faith.

As a Christian of no denomination myself, I have always believed the teaching of Christ are best spread through demonstrative action, beginning with loving your neighbor as yourself. Christ never said love thy Christian, caucasion, wealthy, straight, or any other identifier..he left it simply Love thy neighbor.

In truth, I find the actions of other "Christians" ramming their beliefs down other's throats through bible waving on the street corners, legislating morality or simply pointing the finger in a judgmental way a far cry from what I believe is the inherent message of the New Testament.

Having friends of many different faiths, or the lack of one at all beyond themselves or the general good of humanity, I think the separation of church and state, and the co-existence of freedom of and from religion needs only one governing rule, do what you will as long as it hurts no one else. For any who may recognize it, it's a pagan paradigm, and a very simple yet profound way of being.


I was so happy to read this post. My eventual reaction was that it is one of the wisest and most profound contributions I have seen here on a religion-related theme. From where I sit, all people interested in this question could profit from carefully considering its contents.

The author's nick is unfamiliar to me. So thanks, ClassInSession, please share more of your wisdom in future.


_____________________________



(in reply to ClassIsInSession)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 4:14:25 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
Freedom of religion IS freedom from religion. Maybe the two could be different if there was only one religion out there, that said religion could be completely free to be forced on us. But we don't live in a scenario where it's possible to have one without the other. Because of the multitude of religious differences out there, the moment someone starts forcing their religious beliefs on the rest of us they impact someone else's freedom of religion.

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 4:27:37 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
fr

I must have gone to a very boring school based on the stories I have read. I don't remember anyone in school giving a shit what religion the other kids were, let alone beating anyone up for it. In fact the only time I remember discussing religion with someone in school was when my best friend dragged me to mass with her and we talked about how rotten it was that her mom forced her to go every week.

_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 4:44:05 AM   
GrandPoobah


Posts: 120
Joined: 11/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto


Is it possible to have both freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion at the same time in the same country?


Yes...and no.

Within a limited definition, it is possible. Looking strictly at the practice of religion, it is possible. You can attend or not attend whatever services you wish, subject to the rules of a given institution. If you wish to be a (insert name of church here) you may need to do certain things. Those remain your choice. You may also believe, as you apparently do, that "religious values" don't require "membership." I think that's a more common situation than many people acknowledge. I know many who "grew up in a church" and carry some of the "values" with them even if they don't actively attend services now. So, you can have total freedom...to believe or not, to attend or not, and to allow others the same.

However, it is unrealistic to expect that those same values, whatever they may be, won't affect other things that you do. You may feel that killing is "inappropriate." You may feel that way because of the Ten Commandments, or simply because you feel that way for other reasons. Whether your motivation is based upon religion or not, were the matter to come to a vote, you'd likely base your decision upon your sense of values. It is unreasonable to expect you to set those aside. You might be "simply in favor" or quite determined. The same would be true of most others.

In short, our "religious" background will impact our actions, and it's unrealistic to think it won't, or it could be put aside. In the western legal systems, there is an historic religious background to many of our laws, based mostly upon the Christian and Jewish traditions. In other systems, such as Sharia, the same is true simply based upon other faiths. It is up to you to decide if the overall legal system represents an intrusion of religion in your daily life. For most people, it probably isn't much of an intrusion since they don't do something "illegal."

There are, however, obvious exceptions. In the US, marriage between whites and Negros was illegal in many states. That's pretty intrusive, but not necessarily base upon religion. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does seem to have a strongly religious background.

In any case, the answer to your question depends upon how you view that "freedom."

(in reply to Fightdirecto)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 4:57:08 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

fr

I must have gone to a very boring school based on the stories I have read. I don't remember anyone in school giving a shit what religion the other kids were, let alone beating anyone up for it. In fact the only time I remember discussing religion with someone in school was when my best friend dragged me to mass with her and we talked about how rotten it was that her mom forced her to go every week.

Consider yourself blessed that you had (or didn't have) such experiences when you were young.
To answer the obvious question, yes, I used that word deliberately.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to thishereboi)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? - 3/2/2012 5:10:35 AM   
SoftBonds


Posts: 862
Joined: 2/10/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GrandPoobah


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto


Is it possible to have both freedom OF religion AND freedom FROM religion at the same time in the same country?


Yes...and no.

Within a limited definition, it is possible. Looking strictly at the practice of religion, it is possible. You can attend or not attend whatever services you wish, subject to the rules of a given institution. If you wish to be a (insert name of church here) you may need to do certain things. Those remain your choice. You may also believe, as you apparently do, that "religious values" don't require "membership." I think that's a more common situation than many people acknowledge. I know many who "grew up in a church" and carry some of the "values" with them even if they don't actively attend services now. So, you can have total freedom...to believe or not, to attend or not, and to allow others the same.

However, it is unrealistic to expect that those same values, whatever they may be, won't affect other things that you do. You may feel that killing is "inappropriate." You may feel that way because of the Ten Commandments, or simply because you feel that way for other reasons. Whether your motivation is based upon religion or not, were the matter to come to a vote, you'd likely base your decision upon your sense of values. It is unreasonable to expect you to set those aside. You might be "simply in favor" or quite determined. The same would be true of most others.

In short, our "religious" background will impact our actions, and it's unrealistic to think it won't, or it could be put aside. In the western legal systems, there is an historic religious background to many of our laws, based mostly upon the Christian and Jewish traditions. In other systems, such as Sharia, the same is true simply based upon other faiths. It is up to you to decide if the overall legal system represents an intrusion of religion in your daily life. For most people, it probably isn't much of an intrusion since they don't do something "illegal."

There are, however, obvious exceptions. In the US, marriage between whites and Negros was illegal in many states. That's pretty intrusive, but not necessarily base upon religion. Gay marriage, on the other hand, does seem to have a strongly religious background.

In any case, the answer to your question depends upon how you view that "freedom."


At the time it was a political issue, marriage between white and black citizens was considered a religious issue. "God had separated the races for a reason," and therefore interracial marriage was a violation of gods (implied) law.
Opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with religious objections to the marriage, but rather to homosexuality itself. It is the anger/fear of allowing homosexuality to be "allowed," and treated as acceptable that causes the opposition.
Of course, when you ask these people if they eat pork, they don't even realize why you are asking...

_____________________________

Elite Thread Hijacker!
Ignored: ThompsonX, RealOne (so folks know why I don't reply)

The last poster is often not the "winner," of the thread, just the one who was most annoying.

(in reply to GrandPoobah)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Is Freedom OF and FROM religion mutually possble? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.188