Building bridges to wickedness.

Geez, do I hate giving Chris Stedman any attention.  Over the last few years he, and some of the people to whom he has provided a platform, have taken shots at me when he knew I would not be able to fire back.  Though he attempts to build himself up as some type of hero standing against the atheist big wigs, that behavior has shown me what a coward he is.

Of course, now I can respond to Chris.  He’s got a column in the Religion Dispatches about atheists ignoring Islamophobia in which he takes issue with something I wrote.  Here’s the excerpt from the article.

When I expressed my concern about those comments, atheist blogger JT Eberhard wrote the following:

Islam is a shitty religion (more shitty than most, and try me if you don’t think we can defend that statement) and Muhammad was a pedophile, which has resulted in several Muslims continuing the practice. If Chris doesn’t like the word “shitty”, I wonder what adjective he would suggest. Horrible? Morally repugnant? Should we greet the anti-science, morally fucked up religion of Islam with an, “Oh shucks, that is pretty anti-humanity and doesn’t make much sense now does it?” How softly would be enough to get Stedman to relinquish his iron-clad grip on his pearls? Frankly, to call Islam shitty is like calling the surface of the sun warm.

Later in the post he claimed to just be “factually criticizing” Islam and Muslims, but even if that were his aim, several of the claims he put forth about Islam and Muslims were not only false, but were framed in a way that is likely to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment.

Well, let’s see the claims I put forth.

1.  Muhammad was a pedophile.

From wikipedia.

Aisha was six or seven years old when betrothed to Muhammad. Traditional sources state that she stayed in her parents’ home until the age of nine when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina, with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten.

And yes, other Muslim men attempting to live in the image of their prophet have continued the practice.

This is why we can see stories like that of Nujood Ali, an eight year-old forced to marry a man more than three times her age (who, under Sharia law, received compensation from Nujood’s family in the divorce).

Watch it, Chris.  Listen to it.  Her parents said they could not protect her because now she belonged to her husband.  Look at me and tell me that they would’ve done this without the influence of Islam.

There are countless other cases I could trot out.

2.  Islam is morally repugnant.

As if the worship of a pedophile wasn’t bad enough, we have the burqa which, itself, is an extension of the oppression of women inherent in Islam.  We also have the very idea of apostasy.  Again, from wikipedia.

The majority of Muslim scholars hold to the traditional view that apostasy is punishable by death or imprisonment until repentance, at least for adult men of sound mind.

There is no shortage of Muslims proclaiming this.

Islam is also anti-science.  Its presence in the Middle East has resulted in a populace far more ignorant of reality than they would’ve been without the dogma of Islam.  This concerns me.

So no, Chris.  These things happen.  They happen on account of the contents of Islam.  That some Muslims reject these portions of their faith speaks no more to the goodness of Islam than Christians rejecting the anti-homosexual portions of the bible speaks to the goodness of Christianity.

Speaking of which, Christianity is also a shitty faith.  From its condemnation of gay people to it’s lengthy list of reasons to kill your neighbor, to the idea that humans are loathsome by nature, to the idea that you could be eternally punished for your honest opinion, to the idea that we should believe things on faith, etc., Christianity is a shitty religion.  Some Christians manage to get away from some of that, but it does not rescue Christianity from being a shitty religion.  Nor should it keep us from ignoring Christianity’s malignant influence on hundreds of millions.  Ditto for Islam.

My criticism of Stedman has always been that he protects evil things from criticism.  This is a perfect example.  Take this sentence:

“…were framed in a way that is likely to inflame anti-Muslim sentiment.”

I’d make the correction of saying that it was framed in a way to incite anti-Islam sentiment.  I do not wish any ill against Muslims, but Islam is horrible, and I have no reservations in saying so.  Any moral human being should reject the horrors of Islam.  Likewise, I do not wish any ill against Christians, but Christianity is horrible, and I have no reservations in saying so.

But Chris offers up no defenses of the things I pointed out, and he offers no condemnation of Muhammad’s pedophilia.  He instead prioritizes trying to shame me for drawing attention to these things and for designating them as “shitty.”

He presents my disgust with Islam as evidence for “Islamophobia.”  Anybody without an axe to grind would call it “criticism.”  As Ed Brayton said (in a wonderful blog about this same article), Chris doesn’t seem to get the distinction between criticism of ideas and hatred of people.  This is a defense of religion that theists have used for some time now, to call every criticism of their beliefs prejudice/hate/whatever, and it poisons the well of ideas by suppressing criticism.  Criticism should be withdrawn when it’s wrong, not because it’s confused with bad intent toward the people holding those ideas.

That Chris can have all the charity in the world with faiths largely responsible for the anti-LGBT sentiment in the United States and abroad, but no charity for the guy saying that admiring a pedophile is bad, reveals more than enough about the person trying to build himself up as atheism’s good guy.  Give me atheists who tell the truth and who call out morally terrible things regardless of whose feelings get hurt.  Spare me the ones obstructing the criticism of horrors in an effort to build bridges.

Let’s delve further into Stedman’s article.  At one point he highlights Ernest Perce, as though essentially every atheist in the movement (including myself) hasn’t said he’s an embarrassment.  Nobody’s going to defend most of his shenanigans because he’s been made a pariah by the same movement Chris is suggesting has a problem of embracing Islamophobia (ironically using Perce as evidence for that).  Perce is out to offend, not to make legitimate critiques regardless of who it offends.  Big difference.  But Stedman would have us believe that he is somehow representative of this movement and its flaws on the whole.

Then he talks about a post by Kylie Sturgess.

When skeptic blogger Kylie Sturgess wrote a post about the Joplin mosque she was called “a terrorist” by a commenter.

There are four comments on that post.  Two of them are from Kylie, and the other two aren’t remotely offensive.  Perhaps the “terrorist” comment was deleted by Kylie, but then how does any honest person take one comment as representative of a “problem” in a whole movement?  If that’s the lengths to which you have to stretch to make your case, it might be time to re-examine some things.

Would you like to see the very next sentence in the article after the one quoted above?  Here ya go.

Of course, it’s hardly reasonable to be concerned solely on the basis of comments made by Internet “trolls.”

If that’s so, why cite an obvious internet troll while building your case?

Given all of the above, this part of the article makes me slam my head into my desk.

But while this silence is deeply troubling, I don’t want to suggest that, like some of those mentioned earlier, the atheist community at large necessarily has an Islamophobia problem—or that legitimate criticisms of Islam (or any other religions) constitutes Islamophobia.

If he’s sincere, then he clearly casts a very wide net when determining what is not “legitimate criticisms of Islam” and is “Islamophobia.”

I stand by what I said about Islam: it’s a shitty belief set and a shitty religion.  I can defend that, I have defended it, and Chris has done nothing to change my mind.  Does that mean all Muslims are shitty people?  No (although, no matter how much they’ve emancipated themselves from the contents of their holy books, they all must think faith is a good idea rather than a moral failing, which does cost them points in my book).  I don’t need to withhold criticism of a religion to prove that I don’t wish ill or inequality upon its adherents.  But Islam, like Christianity, is a shitty religion bursting at the seams with moral ideas that should be rejected out of hand, and despite the obviousness of that fact, you’ll never hear Chris Stedman echo the sentiment.  But you’ll sure hear him criticizing those with the integrity to voice it and bending the facts to serve his purpose.

  • Rowan

    Why do you only pick on Christians?! Because you hate them? You hate God that much you would devote all your time to persecuting Christians, you wouldn’t dare say anything about Islamists because you’re too afraid!

    Whats that? You criticize Islam too? You fucking racist Islamaphobe!

    Gee, almost seems like you can’t win…

  • http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/tokenskeptic Kylie Sturgess

    “There are four comments on that post. Two of them are from Kylie, and the other two aren’t remotely offensive. Perhaps the “terrorist” comment was deleted by Kylie, but then how does any honest person take one comment as representative of a “problem” in a whole movement? If that’s the lengths to which you have to stretch to make your case, it might be time to re-examine some things.”

    Dear JT – You have my email address (in fact, we were members of the same blog network, so you should have it at your fingertips) – and could have asked me for clarification as to the comments I received that not only called me a terrorist for posting the link to the fundraiser, but worse.

    My blog commenting policy does not allow for people who threaten me to be posted. That’s why the FIVE threats do not appear. I did, however, make a Twitter comment about them and that is what Mr Stedman saw. I chose to have them removed, but recorded in my emails in case I could take legal action against them in the future. That’s my prerogative.

    If you’re going to call me “dishonest” for having a blog commenting policy, then maybe you should direct the same attitude towards the many other women in atheist and skeptical communities who have policies that do not allow the airing of continual threats, belittling and silencing on their sites? I’m certain that it’d receive the same bewilderment that I have towards your post, considering how you’ve previously posed as an ally in that regard.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      If you’re going to call me “dishonest” for having a blog commenting policy, then maybe you should direct the same attitude towards the many other women in atheist and skeptical communities who have policies that do not allow the airing of continual threats, belittling and silencing on their sites? I’m certain that it’d receive the same bewilderment that I have towards your post, considering how you’ve previously posed as an ally in that regard.

      The hell? Where did I call you dishonest? I suspect the comment was there and was deleted, but I didn’t know for sure. I said “the” terrorist comment because Stedman alluded to only one and, to my knowledge, didn’t refer to any of the others in the post. Why would I email you to check if there was more than one when Chris only used one to build his case?

      I said Stedman was wrong for using one comment from an obvious troll, the one to which he alluded, to build a case for a problem in a whole movement. I never said one word about you or even that I would blame you for deleting a troll comment. I’ve deleted such comments.

      Geez.

      • John Horstman

        She misread the statement: she though you were calling her dishonest for deleting comments instead of calling Stedman dishonest for using a troll/terrorist (systematically threatening people in an attempt to force them to change their behavior is the very definition of terrorism!) comment to build his case.

        Kylie, I know you have to deal with crap all the time by virtue of being a woman on the internet and it can become hard to parse the sheer volume of comments, but I urge you to be really careful when reading things like this, as reacting defensively to something someone hasn’t actually said can lend credibility to the bullshit claims that calling out actual misogyny is always just women or feminists overreacting. It’s certainly not fair to use simple reading mistakes as evidence, but it will be done, so even though you shouldn’t have to (a “whoops, my bad, I misread that, sorry” after a mistake SHOULD be taken and be able to be taken in good faith and resolve a simple misunderstanding), it pays to be careful. I think this is especially true when dealing with people who have in the past been allies, and to whom one therefore has reason to extend the benefit of the doubt (though your what-strikes-me-as-disproportionately-defensive – though I’m not in your position, so maybe it’s completely proportionate from where you’re standing, especially having to directly deal with threats like that – reaction suggests that maybe JT’s past behavior hasn’t suggested to you that he’s an ally?).

    • Nate Frein

      The way I’m reading his post (but I could be wrong), the “dishonest” bit was directed at Stedman for extrapolating the comment(s) into a movement wide problem. I’m not seeing how he called you out as dishonest at any point.

    • http://peternothnagle.com Peter N

      Let me get this straight. JT calls out Stedman for citing a comment on Kylie’s blog as symptomatic of atheist Islamophobia — a comment which doesn’t even appear at the link that Stedman published. Kylie jumps in to accuse JT of — misogyny?. Kylie, you owe JT an apology, unless you can show us how the whole world does, in fact, revolve around you!

  • http://petterhaggholm.net Petter Häggholm

    Kylie, please read what JT said more carefully before leaping to taking offence:

    “Perhaps the “terrorist” comment was deleted by Kylie, but then how does any honest person take one comment as representative of a “problem” in a whole movement?”

    He didn’t say that deleting the comment was “dishonest” (curious notion), but that taking the single comment as representative of a problem was dishonest — which is what Stedman did, not you.

    • SuperMental

      Agreed. Kylie please read JT’s article again. You completely misread it.

  • TychaBrahe

    Personally, I don’t criticize religion for amusement. I think it’s idiotic to believe, for example, that by waving things around Catholic priests can turn crackers into the flesh of God, and that you’re then supposed to eat it. Quite obviously impossible, and disgusting if it weren’t. But I don’t bring up communion and transubstantiation when criticizing Catholicism, because it doesn’t affect me.

    What does effect me is the attempt that the Church makes to legislate based on their morality: their efforts to block marriage equality, taking state money to organize foster parenting and adoption but refusing to place children with qualified gay couples, denying birth control through insurance plans to their employees, attempting to make abortion illegal, attempting to make birth control illegal, covering up the abuse of children, and so forth. In other words, I don’t care what they ask their club members to believe; I object to them trying to make the rest of us live by their rules.

    In this country, such interference in the lives of non-practitioners is pretty much confined to Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, and Orthodox Jews in some parts of New York. You don’t get a whole lot of Hindus demanding that McDonald’s not get a permit to open in their neighborhood, or Sikhs demanding the right to wear their knives in government buildings.

    From time to time you do get crap from Muslims, especially in enclaves like Detroit. There were Muslim taxi drivers who refused to pick people up at the airport who were carrying bags of Duty Free liquor. There were others refusing to transport service animals. And there was a Muslim cashier who was calling it religious discrimination that her employer, a grocery store, expected her to ring up bacon. Those things were quickly dealt with.

    As an American, I can do a lot to change the public religious climate in the US. I can lobby politicians to stop praying in council meetings. I can support groups like the FFRF and AU. There’s not a whole lot I can do about whether women are allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia or not. So, since I can pretty much only change things where I am, and since where I am is steeped in displays of Christian practices, not Muslim ones, that’s what I end up fighting.

    It isn’t about fear of Islam. It isn’t about love of Islam. It’s about not having much of my life intersect with Islam.

    • Nate Frein

      This is an attitude I agree with but you’ve done a much better job at articulating it. The best I can do when someone tells me that things are “much worse somewhere else, so why don’t you go bother them” my basic response is that the clutter in the back yards on the other side of the city shouldn’t stop me from picking up my own back yard.

  • Ted Seeber

    Which is a worse oppression of women, the burka or the bikini?

    I may be Catholic, but I’m also autistic, and it amuses me to no end the stupidity neurotypical feminists who believe in the concept of “modesty” go to in an attempt to supposedly be free of “male lust”. The Burka isn’t a symbol of male oppression at all, it’s a symbol of modesty run amok.

    • Randomfactor

      Male modesty? Because it’s the males who are seeking to make it mandatory.

      I don’t think feminists, considered in general, think THEY should do anything–least of all cover up–to curb male lust. It’s not their problem–it’s the males’ problem.

      • Ted Seeber

        ” Because it’s the males who are seeking to make it mandatory.”

        Don’t know anything about Islam, do you? It ain’t the males who made it mandatory.

    • kagekiri

      Uhm, you do know it can BOTH be a symbol of over-reaching modesty AND a symbol of male-against-female oppression? They’re hardly incompatible or mutually exclusive attributes.

      Also, I guess I only see sex-positive feminists, because I haven’t heard any whining about bikinis or provocative wear from any of those I follow. Hell, most seem to be defending the right to dress as you please, even if it IS burqas or bikinis; it just has to NOT be forced upon women on threat of harassment, violence, murder, and/or total exile, which is unfortunately the way the burqa is forced on people.

      As it is, yes, the burqa really is a symbol of males oppressing females.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd JT Eberhard

      One of them is always optional. I’m going with the one that isn’t.

      • Ted Seeber

        The one you think isn’t optional, IS. But you don’t know anything about Islamic theology or culture, so it’s natural for you to think that it isn’t.

    • John Horstman

      Um, every feminist I know would have a problem with coercing or outright forcing women to wear bikinis in any circumstance, as with burqas. I’m not even sure what your second sentence means; while the bikini certainly ties in with a system of objectification of the female body, feminist discourse these days has mostly moved on to using Foucault’s models of power, adopting the idea that individuals negotiate agency within extant (often oppressive) systems. In that sense, the burqa is “more oppressive” (it’s not the burqa itself that’s oppressive, really, its a set of coercive social norms, sometimes enacted as law, that threaten women with ostracism or violence for not wearing one that are oppressive), but the mainline feminist position on gender-normed clothing like either is that women should be allowed/should demand as much autonomy/agency to dress how they feel comfortable, with a minimum of influence by coercive (and frequently patriarchal) social norms. The burqa is a symbol of an adherence to a particular reading of Islam or an expressed cultural identity; it may be intended/read as a symbol of modesty or oppression; it is definitely used as a vector of oppression. Unless one thinks that everyone needs to act the same way, always, with respect to everything, there’s no contradiction is preferring modest dress oneself while simultaneously advocating for women to be able to wear whatever they want without fear of violence, from nothing to a burqa to a bikini to a tuxedo to a fursuit. The entire line of reasoning seems to rest on an assumption that we need coercive norms of dress at all, that we can’t simply let people, and especially women, wear whatever they are comfortable wearing, which is proscriptively authoritarian and in this case pretty sexist.

    • Rory

      Ted, I gotta be honest with you here, but the drivel you spew is so wrong that if you told me the sky was blue I’d go outside and check. Seriously. Get your head out of your ass. If you’re going to troll, do a halfway decent job of it.

  • Ted Seeber

    Also, in a separate subject requiring a separate comment, did you know that gay bashing, murdering LGBT people for being gay, is against Canon Law and is explicitly discouraged in the Catechism of the Catholic Church? I think somebody needs to introduce Mel Gibson to the CCC

    • Randomfactor

      Apparently so is preventing gays from having full human rights. So I’m not going to give the Pope any credit for agreeing with what the criminal code already says, and any decent human being already practices.

      Ratzi’s, going to have to do better than that. He could start by turning over the church files on pedophiles in their ranks AND THOSE WHO SHELTERED THEM, to prosecutors.

  • ewok_wrangler

    …a defense of religion that theists have used for some time now, to call every criticism of their beliefs prejudice/hate/whatever, and it poisons the well of ideas by suppressing criticism.

    Thank you for making this point; it is the first time I’ve seen that tactic properly identified. It is in fact a case of the Poisoning the Well fallacy. You might at some time make this the subject of a separate post with more examples.

  • Janee

    I was with you until you said the burka was just an extension of the oppression of women.
    That’s dishonest, and it’s bullshit.
    Men and women choose their ideas of modesty differently, but the problem doesn’t lie with the burka or them being worn by women, the problem lies with the use of force to make women who don’t choose to wear them.
    And as a white man, discussing the oppression of Muslim women is not, and will never be, your place.

    • Rowan

      Ill admit, your comment confuses me.
      Burkas are bad, except they arent, except when they are, which they mostly are, but saying theyre bad is bad, because hes not a muslim woman?

      If you saying he’s just blaming the burka (like, just the article of clothing itself), while ignoring the fact that people are forcing women to wear them, I dont think thats the case at all…if you’re saying he opposes forcing women to wear them, but that he shouldnt, because he personally wont have to be forced to, so he should just shut up about it period…I dont see how that helps anything.

      I’m not trying to be rude, just looking for clarification because I just really dont understand your comment (and any rudeness or condescension perceived in my reply is purely my failure to communicate properly), or where the anger is directed (and it could very well be legitimate, there are sometimes fucked up bits with the whole burka thing, like with france banning them [theres arguments made both ways if it was a good move or not, although personally I think it was maybe a somewhat OK move but only happened out of a bit of actual islamaphobia and not for actually caring about the women.])

    • otocump

      Why. Not.

      Does being White and Male automatically make the topic out of bounds regardless of content of discussion? Thats bullshit. You can disagree, you can argue the White Male privilege makes it difficult to discuss in a reasonable light, but you ruling someone out of the discussion is Bull. Shit.

    • John Horstman

      And as a white man, discussing the oppression of Muslim women is not, and will never be, your place.

      Bullshit – you can’t make that statement as an absolute, because in a hypothetical (but certainly possible) context where a Muslim woman holds greater social status, especially with a concomitant ability to exercise power/agency, “White man” becomes a marginalized position to occupy, and you would be silencing the critique of a privileged group by a marginalized group. Anyone can potentially make an informed critique of other cultures, behaviors, etc., it’s just a little trickier to do it ethically when one occupies many positions of privilege relative to the group one’s comments directly concern. (To make an extreme analogy, consider: “White men have no business decrying the sexual enslavement of so-called “comfort women” by the Japanese military during WWII.” Despite not being a Japanese woman in 1940s Japan, I can make and defend a case that sexual slavery is Bad.) What it does mean is that in this particular context, commenting on the positions/circumstances/behaviors/etc. of Arab women (Muslims can be White, and you seem to be suggesting a racial/ethnic distinction instead of a religious one) requires a special attention to the ways privileges might impact one’s worldview, an extra effort to mitigate those ways, and a greater-than-usual willingness to shut up and listen.

      I was with you until you said the burka was just an extension of the oppression of women.

      JT didn’t say the burqa is just an extension of the oppression of women, he said that it is an extension of the oppression of women. It is; the case has been made by countless Muslim women themselves, from whom I’m assuming JT is taking his cue (though he might have done better to link to an Arab or Muslim woman making the case instead of an Arab man). Briefly, vision and movement are severely restricted, making one physically vulnerable, and the compulsory (on threats of ostracism, physical violence, and even death) nature of hijab in many Islamic-theocracy societies makes it by-definition oppressive in those contexts. To pull another example from above, a bikini is absolutely an extension of a culture that sexualizes and objectifies female bodies, but that doesn’t mean it’s ONLY a function of objectification or that it’s never okay to wear one. Is it possible for a woman to wear a burqa in a context where it’s not oppressive? Sure. That does not describe the majority of cases, and the cases it doesn’t describe are extremely troubling. The major difference from a human rights perspective is that no one (as far as I know – maybe I’m wrong?) has ever been stoned to death for not wearing a bikini. I have much more of a problem with people tacitly supporting a social norm by following it when that norm’s enforcement results in life-altering social sanctions or physical violence instead of … are there any negative consequences for not wearing a bikini? Do women frequently get called “ugly” or “bitch” or something hateful on the basis of wearing a more-modest style of swimsuit?

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/ Zinnia Jones

      “And as a white man, discussing the oppression of Muslim women is not, and will never be, your place.”

      Since when is Islam, or any religion, the property of only one race? What race are Muslims, then? Oh, there are Muslims of *every* race? Like with *every* religion?

  • http://reasonableconversation.wordpress.com Kaoru Negisa

    “But while this silence is deeply troubling, I don’t want to suggest that, like some of those mentioned earlier, the atheist community at large necessarily has an Islamophobia problem—or that legitimate criticisms of Islam (or any other religions) constitutes Islamophobia.”

    So…what? His whole article was just an excuse to poke at atheists he doesn’t like?

    If he’s not talking about a problem, what is he talking about? Just that people said things that made him cringe? Was there a point to his post other than to fill bandwidth?

  • MichaelD

    Ok I’m getting in on this game *tongue in cheek*

    I will start a new religion and have all female members to wear the most revealing bikinis possible under penalty of my religious police and you can’t criticize it cause that would be hate and you can’t comment on the dress policy unless you are one of the female canadian (canadian is totally a race now) members! HA ZAH! ;p Cough tongue out of cheek now.

  • Pingback: Muslims prioritizing insults over murder.

  • SuperMental

    Good rebuke. I cannot stand the complete lack of consistency from people like Stedman. Will they ever understand that there are no gods and as such there is no obligation for us to value other people’s baseless beliefs?

  • SuperMental

    Good rebuke. I speak for myself here: I cannot stand the complete lack of consistency from people like Stedman. Will they ever understand that there are no gods and as such there is no obligation for us to value other people’s baseless beliefs? Chris if you want to make a living at this type of work and with your writings, at least be honest about it. Stop pretending that belief in nonsense that leads to abhorrent behavior in some people is ok. Read this other post from JT and please try to understand… focus on the last 2 paragraphs: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2012/09/muslims-prioritizing-insults-over-murder/

  • Pingback: Sam Harris’ article and support for the idea that Islam is barbaric.

  • Stephen

    There is one criticism that I have to make of what you said, though it does fall into the realm of ‘technical foul’. I am a child abuse investigator and as such have quite a lot of contact with child sex offenders. Despite Mohammed having married a six year old and having had sex with her when she was nine years old, it doesn’t technically make him a pedophile. Most people who offend sexually against children actually aren’t pedophiles, in that they don’t necessarily have a specific attraction to children but rather fail to eliminate children from their range of potential sexual interests for one reason or another.

    Not calling Mo a pedophile doesn’t excuse the behaviour one iota, but the label implies more knowledge than we have about motivation. I think that perhaps ‘child rapist’ or something similar would be a more technically appropriate term rather than pedophile, which would require more information than we have about him.

  • Pingback: On Zack Alexander’s review of Chris Stedman’s book.

  • Pingback: Vlad Chituc misses the mark badly.

  • Pingback: Paying a debt with a child.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X