Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Homosexual Wayne Besen on BEL

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Homosexual Wayne Besen on BEL

    Homosexual Wayne Besen on BEL

    This is the show from Thursday January 8th, 2009.

    SUMMARY:

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen, director of the pro-homosexual Truth Wins Out, denied that any child sexual molestation could even theoretically be of a homosexual nature. Bob Enyart explained that many male child molesters hurt only girls, and many female molesters hurt only boys, and that these people are heterosexual child molesters. Likewise, while there are adult bisexuals, there are also bi-sexual child molesters. And male molesters who only rape boys are homosexual child molesters and females who only molest girls are lesbian molesters. Wayne Besen denied this. T.W.O.'s director seemed completely uninterested in statistics regarding male on male and female on female child molestation occurring at rates that far exceed the percentage of homosexuals in society, which provide evidence of greater risk to children from homosexual adults.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen, T.W.O. director, denied the greater health risk of homosexual sex. Enyart explained that unlike heterosexual intercourse, rectal intercourse is the best way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and other blood-borne diseases. As Christians frequently warn, "Because the rectal wall is so thin (a single cell)... sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall, causing great risk of disease, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is common during homosexual sex, and then feces and other germs gain almost direct access to the blood stream." Besen denied all of this.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen was asked about the difference between women long claiming that lesbianism is a lifestyle choice, and homosexuals claiming that they were born that way. Homosexual behavior is far more anonymous and promiscuous than either heterosexual or lesbian behavior because of the different sex drives that God put into us when He made us male and female. Women, unless our culture robs them of self-respect, innately hope for a commitment before agreeing to sex, whereas men need only a place. Even though he admitted to Enyart that male homosexuals are more promiscuous than lesbians, contradicting himself Besen denied all this.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen discounted the widespread tolerance and even promotion of pedophilia among leading homosexuals and organizations. For example, Besen said that only the most fringe homosexuals tolerated sex with kids. Bob Enyart asked him if he's ever heard of Harvey Milk, because Damien Martin, the head of New York's homosexual Harvey Milk High School was quoted positively by a leading homosexual publication saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]," Out magazine article by Jesse Green. Bob asked Besen if he had ever heard of Alan Ginsburg, nationally acclaimed homosexual poet who publicly advocated pedophilia, who was annually honored by Boulder, Colorado giving him the key to the city. Enyart asked Besen if he had heard of the popular homosexual magazine, The Advocate, which published Carl Maves asking, "How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience - one that initiated them into their sexuality - if it weren't for so-called molestation?" in an article titled "Getting Over It." (Would Besen remember the "Recruit, Recruit, Recruit" article about kids in The Advocate?) Besen insisted that only the gay fringe tolerated sex with children so Bob asked if he had heard of Alyson Publications of Boston, a leading homosexual publisher. Yes, Besen had heard of the publishers of, among hundreds of titles, the famous kids books, Heather has T.W.O. Mommies, Daddy's Roommate, and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, but when asked to condemn Alyson for publishing Paedophilia: The Radical Case, with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys, Besen himself refused! So, this leader of the homosexual community has never met a homosexual who tolerated the promotion of sex with children, yet if he looked in the mirror, he will find his true self, in rebellion against Jesus Christ who made us male and female. (More on gay tolerance of Pedophilia below.)

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen was asked, "Why do we not allow a male coach in the girls locker room?" The only answer Besen offered is because men are physically larger than women. Enyart rebutted that society does not allow short slender men in a women's sauna, nor female coaches in the boy's showers. Besen refused to give an actual answer because he said he knew where the reasoning would lead. Bob urged Besen not to fear simple truth, and then explained, "We do not assume every adult is a child molester. No. We don't allow men in the girl's locker room because there is a sexual attraction between men and women. So we give teenage girls privacy from men in showers and locker rooms." Enyart then explained the parallel with widespread homosexuality in which it violates the privacy of kids to have male coaches who are attracted to men in the boy's locker room. (Of course, Focus on the Family supports equal rights for homosexuals, so they have the exact same utterly unresovable problem here as Besen does.) Enyart said that promotion of homosexuality robs men and women of social environments free from sexual tension. Formerly, a woman could go on a lady's retreat without concern for prying eyes in close quarters, but homosexuality imposes sexual tension where there should be none. Besen denies this.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen asserted that the men who claim to be formerly homosexual are part of a fraud. Bob quoted a scathing article in the anti-Christian Denver weekly, Westword, written against Bob Enyart, in which they wrote about a BEL listener that Bob had not known, Greenwood Indiana's David Oeschle, who "was openly gay from 1983 to 1995" when he first saw, "Bob Enyart Live... 'Everything Bob says about homosexuals is right,' Oeschle says. 'It's disgusting... exceedingly promiscuous, and many of them tend to move toward... more vile practices because it's not fulfilling anymore.' Oeschle has since renounced his homosexuality." And as Bob recalled, is now a pro-life, married man with homeschooled children! Enyart asked why Besen felt the need to doubt this man's testimony. Besen answered that we should never try to get someone to deny who they are, deep down, to which Bob replied, "Child molesters." We should try to get them, or anyone who has destructive tendencies, to deny their deepest urges.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen was asked to comment on Enyart's previous interviews with transsexuals, one who was asked about the Titanic, and the other who had spilled a big gulp. In Denver's KNUS studio, Bob asked a man who had a sex-change operation what he would do if, while on a sinking ship, he heard the cry, "Women and children to the lifeboats!" What should he do? Besen chuckled, and then, like the transsexual, he couldn't answer. Enyart presented this as evidence that deep down both of them realize the guy is not a woman, otherwise, the answer would be automatic. The guy who spilled the Big Gulp on the studio table one minute before airtime was dressed as a woman; he had a sex change operation; and New York re-issued to him a woman's drivers license. When he spilled the pop, he then opened his purse, and proceeded to scope the pop into his purse. Pop in purse. Bob Enyart pointed out that no woman alive would scoop pop into her purse. This guy was a guy. Besen denied this.

    * Queen of Denial: Wayne Besen didn't realize that Dr. James Dobson had changed his position on homosexuality from affirming the biblical standard of the behavior as criminal, to promoting equal rights for homosexuals. Bob somewhat agreed with this quote from Besen: ""Focus on the Family is going to find that support for their outdated position on gay and lesbian equality is eroding, even among evangelical Christians." While of course Focus would agree that gays are equal to lesbians, sadly, they also agree that legal equality means discarding 3,500 years of Judeo-Christian legal prohibition of homosexual behavior. Focus on the Family's reversal of their former, scriptural position, and promotion of equal rights for homosexuals since their "Amendment 2" campaign in the early 1990s, has done more to promote acceptance of the homosexual agenda among evangelicals than have homosexual activists. Besen did seem to realize this either.

    * Ends on a Hopeful Note: Wayne Besen answered Bob Enyart's last question with a yes, saying that if he became convinced that the Creator God commanded against homosexuality as destructive, that he would be willing to repent. That degree of humility indicates hope!

    Post-show Notes

    * Listen Online to Brian Rohrbough in DC:
    Brian Rohrbough, the president of American Right To Life, will be speaking this weekend at the Institute on the Constitution in Washington! To listen and watch live on Friday at 7 p.m. E.T. go to National Pro Life Radio!

    * BEL Indiana Seminars: Bob Enyart is coming to Indiana, Goshen in the evening of Jan. 29th and Indianapolis on Saturday January 31st, to present a brand new BEL Seminar titled Hermeneutics: Tools for Studying the Bible. Learn how to use tools of interpretation as you study the Bible. And as importantly, Bob will discuss the principles involved for prioritizing these hermeneutics and how to decide which tool to use in which instance. You'll love it! Click for more info and to register please call 1-800-8Enyart!

    Today's Resource: Watch Terry's Call on DVD as Bob quickly unravels Terry's red herring claim, that homosexuals are living godly lives. In a series of heart touching phone calls, Terry is led to the Lord and repentance, shortly before his death from AIDS. (And notice the meaning of all the graphic elements in the arT.W.O.rk on the label of the DVD!)

    * More on Gay Tolerance of Pedophilia: (continued from above) Wayne Besen admitted that for years the homosexual community welcomed the militant pedophiles at the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) to march in their "gay pride" parades in New York and San Francisco. Enyart explained that homosexuals only severed this vile promotion of NAMBLA in the 1990s after Christian organizations exposed the parades via new media like right wing talk shows. (Perhaps Besen has heard of long-time homosexual activist David Thorstad, founding member of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and former president of the New York Gay Activists Alliance who according to The Journal of Homosexuality protested the decision by the March on Washington organizers to exclude pedophiles like NAMBLA.) Bob explained to Besen that Christian outrage moved the Clinton administration to remove NAMBLA from the homosexual association which gave them consulting status at the United Nations, and while Besen continued insisting this was a fringe effort, Enyart added that the University of Massachusetts at Amherst voted to revise its non-discrimination policy to protect "persons whose sexual orientation includes minor children as the sex object." And Besen even referenced the American Psychological Association as a source of human goodness but of course they attempted to advance pedophilia in their journal, The Psychological Bulletin under the title "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse." (BTW, Time Magazine, ever tolerant of perversion, in For the Love of Kids printed a puff piece on the editor of NAMBLA's journal, with the ACLU's defense, "if it's NAMBLA today, who is it tomorrow?" According to Time, this New York City teacher, Peter Melzer published an article In Praise of the Penises, on "how to make that special boy feel good." As to a police report on Melzer's alleged sex with a Filipino boy, Time assured us, there is no hard evidence that he abused this "or any other boy in the U.S.") Responding to Besen denial, Enyart quoted from page 144 of another Alyson publication, The Age Taboo: "Boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... [the] parents." (And BTW further, Besen has probably also heard of homosexual activist Andy Humm (NYC News, Gay USA, GCN) who brags of his influence over the New York City Council and wrote in the New York Native that, "No one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transvestite, pedophile, sadist..." And Enyart explained to Besen what Out magazine unintentionally admitted in an article titled, The Men From the Boys, when they quoted, without judgment, the founder of a home for runaway youth who claimed that between 14 and 16 years of age, he "probably had sex with well over a thousand people, most of them much older than myself." This man's testimony is not unique, and if he was not lying, that means that this young boy, loose among homosexuals, was molested by hundreds of gay men who just happened to come upon him. Countless boys have been initiated into homosexuality through molestation. Besen denies all this.
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Wow.

    I started by reading the summary, which sounded pretty absurd, and then decided to listen to the actual conversation. Its misrepresentation of Wayne is flagrant. I can't believe there's a section in the summary titled "Gay Tolerance of Pedophelia"; the accusation was disgusting on Bob's part to begin with, but after how absolutely clear Wayne made it that neither he nor the gay community (which Bob conveys as some sort of institution that determines gay behavior -- I wonder what the 'straight community' has to say about us. It's ridiculous) in any way or form supports pedophilia, the commentary still tries to make it sound otherwise. It's slander.

    Look for pieces in the commentary where "Wayne was unable to respond" or "Wayne conceded blah" etc. because in nearly every instance, in the actual discussion, Wayne seemed more incredulous at Bob's ignorance and cruelty than actually lacking in his ability to back up claims or respond to Bob's points. Other instances of Wayne's "denial" or "inability to respond" are in truth instances where Bob is asking questions that should be laughed at rather than responded to.

    Please listen to the actual discussion rather than settling for the commentary on this one.

    P.S. This is from someone who is not gay and has never given thought to defending gays, or gay rights (I say this to establish my honest to God lack of a bias on the issue) -- just someone responding to cruel and unjust behavior toward other humans.
    Last edited by AlfredTuring; January 10, 2009, 01:18 AM. Reason: Oops -- wrote this as if Bob had been the author of the commentary; the actual author is unknown to me.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AlfredTuring View Post
      P.S. This is from someone who is not gay and has never given thought to defending gays, or gay rights (I say this to establish my honest to God lack of a bias on the issue) -- just someone responding to cruel and unjust behavior toward other humans.
      For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!
      Galatians 5:13-15

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Prisca View Post
        Another way of saying "I swear" but easier to fit into that sentence. I'm also known to say "good God!" and "God dammit!" -- despite my atheism

        Comment


        • #5
          I find it humorous that many right wingers are so afraid of gays that they have to try to stereotype them as representing some danger to society by associating them with a detested group.

          Booooo! I'm the big, bad gay man!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Revelation View Post
            I find it humorous that many right wingers are so afraid of gays that they have to try to stereotype them as representing some danger to society by associating them with a detested group.

            Booooo! I'm the big, bad gay man!

            Homophobia is a myth

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Revelation View Post
              I find it humorous that many right wingers are so afraid of gays that they have to try to stereotype them as representing some danger to society by associating them with a detested group.

              Booooo! I'm the big, bad gay man!

              Should adults be legally allowed to have sex with children?
              "It is still difficult to gain release from the process of reading the Scriptures with a predetermined background of inherited Greek philosophy, medieval dogma, and youthful indoctrination."

              G.T. Stevenson
              Time and Eternity (page 10)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by eph39 View Post
                Should adults be legally allowed to have sex with children?
                If this is the preferred type of progression logical conversation takes around these parts, I can already see that I'll have a lot of fun here.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eph39 View Post
                  Should adults be legally allowed to have sex with children?
                  Well, that's a rather disgusting question eph39; sad to see you're morally uncertain enough to need to come here for clarification.

                  ----------------------------------

                  Seriously though, why not listen to the actual broadcast and see what somebody from the 'gay community' (as long as people want to persist in claiming this 'community' actually has something to do with the behavior of homosexuals in general) has said about the topic instead of saying extremely offense, baseless things about perfectly innocent people. Seriously, listen to Wayne's response to these accusations. It's not the response of somebody with a dirty secret to hide; it's the response of someone tolerating ridiculous, bigoted accusations, and mustering the patience to respond to them.

                  What was published in a "gay magazine" as a quote from a gay person, is not representative of homosexuals in general. This way of looking at things is an ignorant approach that does nothing but foster useless prejudice. What must I think of all Christians in view of ex-Christian leader Ted Haggard's behavior? Or why not look at any act made by say, a white person in power, and claim that it reflects generally tendencies in the behavior of white people. Or maybe we could try the same thing by picking from the straight community; the aims and desires of every organization formed by straight people now reflects the aims and desires of all straight people! Really?

                  Have I missed something here? Or is this actually just as immoral as it sounds...

                  I mean, if your view is that the bible says gay people are bad so they are, ok, fine. Stick with that; there's no need viciously distort the reality of their behavior to reflect your view meanwhile. It's just a dishonest approach, and cruel to your fellow man. Am I to understand that persecuting gays comes before honest behavior in the Christian view of things?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by AlfredTuring View Post
                    Well, that's a rather disgusting question eph39; sad to see you're morally uncertain enough to need to come here for clarification.

                    ----------------------------------

                    Seriously though, why not listen to the actual broadcast and see what somebody from the 'gay community' (as long as people want to persist in claiming this 'community' actually has something to do with the behavior of homosexuals in general) has said about the topic instead of saying extremely offense, baseless things about perfectly innocent people. Seriously, listen to Wayne's response to these accusations. It's not the response of somebody with a dirty secret to hide; it's the response of someone tolerating ridiculous, bigoted accusations, and mustering the patience to respond to them.

                    What was published in a "gay magazine" as a quote from a gay person, is not representative of homosexuals in general. This way of looking at things is an ignorant approach that does nothing but foster useless prejudice. What must I think of all Christians in view of ex-Christian leader Ted Haggard's behavior? Or why not look at any act made by say, a white person in power, and claim that it reflects generally tendencies in the behavior of white people. Or maybe we could try the same thing by picking from the straight community; the aims and desires of every organization formed by straight people now reflects the aims and desires of all straight people! Really?

                    Have I missed something here? Or is this actually just as immoral as it sounds...

                    I mean, if your view is that the bible says gay people are bad so they are, ok, fine. Stick with that; there's no need viciously distort the reality of their behavior to reflect your view meanwhile. It's just a dishonest approach, and cruel to your fellow man. Am I to understand that persecuting gays comes before honest behavior in the Christian view of things?
                    Did you not understand what I asked? It wasn't actually addressed to you but since you responded (kinda), shall I repeat it more simply so you'll actually answer it with a "yes" or a "no"?
                    "It is still difficult to gain release from the process of reading the Scriptures with a predetermined background of inherited Greek philosophy, medieval dogma, and youthful indoctrination."

                    G.T. Stevenson
                    Time and Eternity (page 10)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by eph39 View Post
                      Did you not understand what I asked? It wasn't actually addressed to you but since you responded (kinda), shall I repeat it more simply so you'll actually answer it with a "yes" or a "no"?
                      I responded because I didn't think you were seriously asking for the reason of your curiousity. If you actually want Revelation to answer, then my apologies; let's wait and see what he has to say.

                      If you actually want a response from me now, it is: Thank you eph39 for repeating your question more simply so that I can comprehend its vast intricacies. The answer must clearly be "no", rather than what I stated before; which was obviously a misunderstanding of your question's true purport.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by AlfredTuring View Post
                        "no"
                        Thank you.

                        There, see? Slow and careful reading without knee-jerk reactions is our mutual friend! Ta,
                        "It is still difficult to gain release from the process of reading the Scriptures with a predetermined background of inherited Greek philosophy, medieval dogma, and youthful indoctrination."

                        G.T. Stevenson
                        Time and Eternity (page 10)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by AlfredTuring View Post
                          What was published in a "gay magazine" as a quote from a gay person, is not representative of homosexuals in general.


                          Or, in other words...

                          What was published in a "gay magazine" as a quote from a gay person, is not representative of homosexuals in general...

                          Or when the head of New York's homosexual Harvey Milk High School defends pedophilia by saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]"...

                          Or when The Advocate publishes homosexul Carl Maves asking, "How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience - one that initiated them into their sexuality - if it weren't for so-called molestation?"

                          Or when homosexual publisher Alyson Publications of Boston puts out "Paedophilia: The Radical Case," with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys...

                          Or when Alyson Publications prints "The Age Taboo," saying that "boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... [the] parents."

                          Or when long-time homosexual activist David Thorstad, founding member of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and former president of the New York Gay Activists Alliance protested the decision to exclude pedophiles like NAMBLA, and wanted them to retain consulting status at the U.N...

                          Or when the University of Massachusetts at Amherst voted to revise its non-discrimination policy to protect "persons whose sexual orientation includes minor children as the sex object."

                          Or when the American Psychological Association attempted to advance pedophilia in their journal, The Psychological Bulletin under the title "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse."

                          Or when Time Magazine, ever tolerant of perversion, in For the Love of Kids printed a puff piece on the editor of NAMBLA's journal...

                          Or when New York City teacher, Peter Melzer published an article In Praise of the Penises, on "how to make that special boy feel good."

                          Or when homosexual activist Andy Humm (NYC News, Gay USA, GCN) who brags of his influence over the New York City Council and wrote in the New York Native that, "No one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transvestite, pedophile, sadist..." [As if being a pedophile is simply a "sexual orientation...]

                          Or when Out magazine explained how countless thousands of gay men were initiated into homosexuality through numerous incidents of man-boy pedophilia...

                          Certainly none of these things are reason to consider that there is any support in the mainstream homosexual community for pedophilia! What a ridiculous claim! Obviously this is all just the fringe!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I got a copy of that secretly recorded "Sexualization of Children" tape, with the homosexual teaching sodomy in the Massachusetts middle school classroom, before the courts ordered its distribution stopped. It may be available now, I dunno, but if anyone's not heard it it's quite, quite graphic.
                            "It is still difficult to gain release from the process of reading the Scriptures with a predetermined background of inherited Greek philosophy, medieval dogma, and youthful indoctrination."

                            G.T. Stevenson
                            Time and Eternity (page 10)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Graphite View Post
                              Or, in other words...

                              What was published in a "gay magazine" as a quote from a gay person, is not representative of homosexuals in general...

                              Or when the head of New York's homosexual Harvey Milk High School defends pedophilia by saying, "No kid has ever been hurt by [oral sex]"...

                              Or when The Advocate publishes homosexul Carl Maves asking, "How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience - one that initiated them into their sexuality - if it weren't for so-called molestation?"

                              Or when homosexual publisher Alyson Publications of Boston puts out "Paedophilia: The Radical Case," with 300 pages of why and how to have sex with even pre-teen boys...

                              Or when Alyson Publications prints "The Age Taboo," saying that "boy-lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers... are not child molesters. The child abusers are... [the] parents."

                              Or when long-time homosexual activist David Thorstad, founding member of the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights and former president of the New York Gay Activists Alliance protested the decision to exclude pedophiles like NAMBLA, and wanted them to retain consulting status at the U.N...

                              Or when the University of Massachusetts at Amherst voted to revise its non-discrimination policy to protect "persons whose sexual orientation includes minor children as the sex object."

                              Or when the American Psychological Association attempted to advance pedophilia in their journal, The Psychological Bulletin under the title "A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse."

                              Or when Time Magazine, ever tolerant of perversion, in For the Love of Kids printed a puff piece on the editor of NAMBLA's journal...

                              Or when New York City teacher, Peter Melzer published an article In Praise of the Penises, on "how to make that special boy feel good."

                              Or when homosexual activist Andy Humm (NYC News, Gay USA, GCN) who brags of his influence over the New York City Council and wrote in the New York Native that, "No one should be denied basic civil rights because of his or her orientation, whether the person be homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transvestite, pedophile, sadist..." [As if being a pedophile is simply a "sexual orientation...]

                              Or when Out magazine explained how countless thousands of gay men were initiated into homosexuality through numerous incidents of man-boy pedophilia...

                              Certainly none of these things are reason to consider that there is any support in the mainstream homosexual community for pedophilia! What a ridiculous claim! Obviously this is all just the fringe!

                              Yes, absolutely ridiculous. These are things published by gays and said by individual gays -- they are supposed to somehow reflect general tendencies among the probably more than 12 million gays in the U.S. alone? The list is embarrassingly small. The likelihood of these 11 instances pertaining to exclusively fringe activity, is extremely high. And the whole notion is still predicated on the idea that these people/companies are part of some comprehensive gay institution. If such a gay institution did in fact exist, and garnered the membership of a literal majority of the gay population, and supported some of the statements above, we'd have a serious issue. That's an understatement -- it'd be very serious and demanding immediate action. Meanwhile, since that's not the case, keep in mind that a list identical the one found above could be created for Christians, and it'd be a lot longer, and a lot worse (people from all groups large enough do and say bad things). You really want to say that such a list should determine how Christians are treated? 11 items from random badly behaved Christians or organizations that could be claimed to be Christian? Really, that's it?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X