2012's most important stories on faith

Dec 29, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Tyler Morning Telegraph

In 2012, a diversity of faiths were represented in the news on the national level ...

Comments
61 - 80 of 161 Comments Last updated Jan 4, 2013

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KMA wrote:
Now you're arguing with yourself. I haven't said a thing about gay marriage, one way or the other.
You responded directly to my statement about civil marriage and same-sex couples, so yes, you did.
KMA wrote:
But, since you asked - my opinion (which I'm sure you will label as dumb, irrational, etc) is that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. I would think that you would agree.


I would have no problem with that, so long as whatever civil union replaces it weren't limited on the basis of the sex of the partners and that all legal unions -- opposite-sex or same-sex -- were afforded the equal protections of the law.
KMA wrote:
After all, marriage is a religious practice.


Actually, marriage is a civil institution, too. The word is used in both contexts -- civil and ceremonial. In fact, a religious marriage isn't even a legal one. For that, you need a civil marriage.
KMA wrote:
What about "separation of church and state?" Should the government be giving licenses to people for a religious practice?


No, but civil marriage isn't a religious practice.
KMA wrote:
Furthermore, if its none of the governments business who someone marries, then get the government out of it altogether.
Again, I'd have no problem with a civil union for all. But the catholic, mormon, and Southern baptist churches are on record opposing this idea. They're even opposed to a "separate but equal" system of civil unions for same-sex couples only.

So removing discrimination based solely on the sex of the partners is really the only practical alternative.
KMA wrote:
But, again we've come back to liberty vs. totalitarianism. I'll leave you to ponder that on your own.
Continue to feel free to argue with yourself. After all, no one can match your intellect but you.
Certainly you can't, anyway.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#65
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No, No, you still don't get what getting the government out of it means. It means no civil unions, no marriage licenses of any kind. If you want to get married, you go get married. No need to get anything from the government. You're free to marry whoever or whatever you want. No government sanctioning or involvement at all. No "civil unions." For some reason you seem to have trouble thinking anything can happen without the government being involved.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#66
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Think about the word totalitarianism.

Then think about whether there is anything you don't want the government to control. No need to respond, I'm not asking you a question - just asking you think.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#67
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here's something else I just ran across that I thought you might find interesting. Again, just think about it:
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and t...alk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Continued:I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.
Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.
And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.
He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#69
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

This was supposed to be before the previous post: Thought you might find it interesting:

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and t...alk show host in Los Angeles.
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."
The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.
I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.
The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I noticed in your profile you had a statement that used the word "facism." I wonder if you know what it means:

fascism
Definition
fascism[ f shzzəm ]NOUN
1. dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

fascism 737 up, 97 down
The only official definition of Fascism comes from Benito Mussolini, the founder of fascism, in which he outlines three principles of a fascist philosophy.
1."Everything in the state". The Government is supreme and the country is all-encompasing, and all within it must conform to the ruling body, often a dictator.
2."Nothing outside the state". The country must grow and the implied goal of any fascist nation is to rule the world, and have every human submit to the government.
3."Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong. If you do not agree with the government, you cannot be allowed to live and taint the minds of the rest of the good citizens.

Sound familiar?

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KMA wrote:
No, No, you still don't get what getting the government out of it means. It means no civil unions, no marriage licenses of any kind. If you want to get married, you go get married. No need to get anything from the government. You're free to marry whoever or whatever you want. No government sanctioning or involvement at all. No "civil unions." For some reason you seem to have trouble thinking anything can happen without the government being involved.
Apparently YOU don't understand what I'm talking about.

So long as the law protects all citizens equally, I don't have a problem with it.

Again, go back and find out what the major churches and their millions of adherents in this country -- the catholics, the mormons, and the baptists -- would say about de-institutionalizing civil marriage. I'm sure they wouldn't be too thrilled.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KMA wrote:
Here's something else I just ran across that I thought you might find interesting. Again, just think about it:
Mychal Massie is a respected writer and t...alk show host in Los Angeles....
So Mychal Massie is a conservative Republican.

And he's... BLACK!

OMG... you've completely overwhelmed all arguments against current rightwing ideology by finding a black critic of Obama. I'll bet you can find even more.

Congratulations.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KMA wrote:
I noticed in your profile you had a statement that used the word "facism." ...
Sound familiar?
You really do need to read more than the crap that is posted on Free Republic. I don't know if I've come across an individual who has a more simplistic and unsophisticated understanding of basic politics and economics than you.

Oh, maybe one of my students. One of the real slow ones.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Jan 2, 2013
 
KMA wrote:
Think about the word totalitarianism.
Then think about whether there is anything you don't want the government to control. No need to respond, I'm not asking you a question - just asking you think.
The diatribe that you have posted about and against the Obamas is constructed around a philosophical point of view that is not germaine to this discussion.

What we are talking about is the enmeshment of government and religious practice that necessarily occurs at some levels and practices of individual liberty.

Jerald is right. Civil union is the recognition of a marriage which is not depedent upon religious views. It pertains to all sorts of practices that comprise civil society and the rights and obligations of the citizen. It directly acknowledges private ownership of property, rights of survivorship, inheritance, authority within the bounds of the agreement within the civil union and the personal freedoms afforded within the civil union - in other words, adult mutual consent.

The Founders knew that religious practice and civil government have areas of mutual concern. The "wall" of separation is not a line of demarcation. Instead, it is an area of definition that government is not supposed to enter, but that is also protected by law. So and yet, government must define a civil society and is expressly designed and permitted to do so.

This is not about totalitarianism. This is about civil rights.

It then follows that if various religious institutions are motivated to recognize and sanctify same-sex union as the basis for a spiritual union, such unions can be both a legal and spiritual marriage.

The argument is simply whether or not certain religious institutions can prevent a government sanctioned civil union from being defined as a "marriage."

I don't think they can. I think that there are and have always been and will continue to be spritual unions between pair-bonded individuals, regardless of physical sexual form, that are in all spiritual and practical respects defined as a marriage.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Jan 2, 2013
 
Please pardon the misspellings of the words, dependent and spiritual, in the previous post.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Jan 2, 2013
 
"The diatribe that you have posted about and against the Obamas is constructed around a philosophical point of view that is not germaine to this discussion."

This was a discussion about the power and scope of the federal goverment. Jerald steered it to gay marriage. I gave him my opinion - just get government out of it altogether.

Now, back to the original discussion - Jerald, and those of his ideology want government to control everything from healthcare to marriage. I'm sorry but that is totalitarianism. That type of thinking is what lead to the types of government that Germany had prior to WWII and also lead to the type of government in the former Soviet Union.

Now, I'm sure Jerald will want to steer the conversation back to gay marriage because he knows that the type of government he wants is one that controls everything and everyone and oppresses any ideas he doesn't agree with. He really is anti-liberty. But, lets just talk about gay marriage instead. Let's distract from the real issues. Because, discussing the real issues shows that Jerald embraces totalitarianism and fascism.

The stuff I posted about the Obamas was just to get a reaction from Jerald because I'm sure he worships them. Like many, he fails to see that Obama is just another politician. Unfortunately, he is a dangerous politician because he wants to bring government control to everything. We hear from him and Jerald the same types of things that people said that lead to communism in the former Soviet Union. They think that the progressive ideas they espouse are new and different. They think they are smarter than anyone else because they came up with these new and different ideas that are so brilliant - that if they just give the government all control, and silence those crazy people who believe in true liberty, we will have utopian society. Unfortunately, their ideas are not new. Its all been done before. And the type of government it lead to was oppressive - totalitarian. Obamacare is just one major step in this direction But, lets just talk about gay marriage - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

On the other hand, if you want to discuss gay marriage, I guess we can:

Btw, "Rev" Ken - you need to spend a little more time reading your Bible. If you think gay marriage can be "spiritual" you must only be using the word in a humanistic sense. Unfortunately some refuse to acknowledge what God's word says and want to only pick and choose those things as it suits them. The morals of society change and shift with the times. God's Word doesn't. Truth is always the same.

Yes, homosexuality is sin. The fact that you don't want it to be doesn't make it so. The fact that society says its okay doesn't make it so. However, let's remember that we are all sinners. Not only is homosexuality sin but so is any sex outside of marriage. Christians have often erred by demonizing homosexuals when they should have been reaching out to them with love and forgiveness. We're all sinners, we're all the same. None of us is worthy of entering the Kingdom of God. We can only do so through God's grace. But, that doesn't mean we should condone sin.

Many today are pushing an "anything goes" theology. There is no sin. All roads lead to God. If that is the theology you are pushing, you can't rely on God's Word to back you up. That theology is a rejection of God's Word. Unfortunately, this theology is becoming more and more popular and is leading many astray. Its not surprising that many will choose the easier, more appealing wide road, instead of the rocky narrow road. The masses are often lead astray. We've seen that over and over.

Many tell us now that good and evil do not exist. Evil's most powerful weapon is deception. Evil appears to be good and makes good appear to be evil. That is exactly what we see on the gay marriage issue. Those who oppose it are demonized, made to appear to be evil. This type of deception is common in this world and many are fooled by it. You see, that's the problem with relying on your own feelings, or on the whims of society to determine right and wrong. We are easily mislead. That's why people are often referred to as sheep in the Bible. That is why we have God's Word. We need to test everything against his Word. If we do that, we are less likely to be lead astray. Unfortunately, this anything goes, all roads lead to God theology fails the test.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Jan 2, 2013
 
But, as far as government and gay marriage - like I said, just get the government out. Seems like anyone who believes in liberty would be okay with that. No marriage licenses, no civil unions.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Jan 2, 2013
 
"Oh, maybe one of my students. One of the real slow ones."

I sincerely hope you are not a teacher. If so, I hope you are not indoctrinating the students with you ideas. I sure hope you don't teach Civics or Government. If this is what we are teaching our kids, no wonder this country is on a path to destruction.
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Jan 2, 2013
 
It's not really that hard to see the things that are leading this country down the road to destruction. They are many and have occurred over a long period of time. The breakdown of the traditional family structure was really the beginning of the end for this country. This same pattern has occurred in other societies and it is a fact that once the traditional family structure begins to breakdown, it is only a matter of time before the society collapses. Like the progressive ideas that Jerald believes to be new and brilliant, its all happened before. The acceptance and ease of divorce was an initial step. Then accepting cohabitation outside of marriage. Acceptance of promiscuity. The acceptance of homosexuality is just another step in the pattern that has lead to the collapse of previous societies.

We've seen all sorts of problems this causes, primarily it effects the raising of children. We have an epidemic of fatherless children. Yes, children can be raised in single parent homes, but there is proof that it is much better for a child to be raised in a home with a mother and father (not two mothers or two fathers). Of course, these studies are not given any attention by the popular media today because that is not the message they want to send.
If we combine the breakdown of the family structure with the political push toward totalitarianism - well, we've seen that that type of government is not a good thing.
Yes, I'm afraid to say this country will not be around for too much longer. I'm guessing maybe 50 to 100 years at the most. I wish it wasn't that way, but the signs are there. And, so many people think they are making things better when, in reality, they are pushing us on down that road.

Furthermore, our own greed and selfishness are hastening our journey down this road. Many voted for Obama because of what they are getting from the government, or what they think they will get. That type of society cannot continue to support itself and will collapse under its own weight at some point
KMA

Benton, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Jan 2, 2013
 
"So Mychal Massie is a conservative Republican.

And he's... BLACK!

OMG... you've completely overwhelmed all arguments against current rightwing ideology by finding a black critic of Obama. I'll bet you can find even more.

Congratulations."

I didn't mention the fact that he was black. Why did you feel the need to mention it. Obviously, you have some issues with race.

“Post-religious”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Jan 2, 2013
 
KMA wrote:
Now, back to the original discussion - Jerald, and those of his ideology want government to control everything from healthcare to marriage. I'm sorry but that is totalitarianism. That type of thinking is what lead to the types of government that Germany had prior to WWII and also lead to the type of government in the former Soviet Union....
Classic strawman arguments. Throw in totalitarianism, communism, nazis to boot. All the current rightwing arguments found on Free Republic.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Jan 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KMA wrote:
"The diatribe ... this discussion."
This was a discussion about the power and scope of the federal goverment. Jerald steered it to gay marriage. I gave him my opinion - just get government out of it altogether.
Now, back to the original discussion - Jerald, and those of his ideology want government to control everything from healthcare to marriage. I'm sorry but that is totalitarianism. That type of thinking is what lead to the types of government that Germany had prior to WWII and also lead to the type of government in the former Soviet Union.
Now, I'm sure Jerald will want to steer the conversation back to gay marriage because he knows that the type of government he wants is one that controls everything and everyone and oppresses any ideas he doesn't agree with. He really is anti-liberty. But, lets just talk about gay marriage instead. Let's distract from the real issues. Because, discussing the real issues shows that Jerald embraces totalitarianism and fascism.
The stuff I posted about the Obamas was just to get a reaction from Jerald because I'm sure he worships them. Like many, he fails to see that Obama is just another politician. Unfortunately, he is a dangerous politician because he wants to bring government control to everything. We hear from him and Jerald the same types of things that people said that lead to communism in the former Soviet Union. They think that the progressive ideas they espouse are new and different. They think they are smarter than anyone else because they came up with these new and different ideas that are so brilliant - that if they just give the government all control, and silence those crazy people who believe in true liberty, we will have utopian society. Unfortunately, their ideas are not new. Its all been done before. And the type of government it lead to was oppressive - totalitarian. Obamacare is just one major step in this direction But, lets just talk about gay marriage - pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
KMA,

Please understand. You are, as Jerald observed, conflating issues.

Totalitarianism, per se, does neither support nor deny either civil union or marriage.

Government, in cahoots with religion, that is to say, a theocratic system, does decide law which governs civil union and marriage. A theocracy, such as the Iranian government, sets the standards.

Our government, a constitutional republic, has an obligation to construct civil law in context and in league with the individual liberties that it is written to protect. The civil rights that our Constitution provides, ostensibly to the individual as the basic minority interest, are the basis for Jerald's claims.

It is his position, and Jerald please correct me if I misstate your cause, that his choice, to enter into civil union with one who mutually agrees as a consenting adult, is his civil right. It is guaranteed under the fundamental principles of our Constitution. And, in fact, is also guaranteed under the clause providing individual freedom of religion.

It is his position that you, abiding by that same specific freedom, do not have the right to deny him and his partner either or both civil union and marriage. All that you can reasonably do is deny his marriage within the confines of your particular religious belief and the conduct of its practices within the walls of its institutional properties. This is simply a reflection of the liberties that you demand be protected for your own set of beliefs.

For you to NOT defend the same for him as you demand for yourself is an expression of bigoted hypocrisy on your part - as defined for the individual in this Constitutional Republic, under our Constitution.

He is correct, in my view.

The idea of civil union between consenting adults is a matter of civil liberty - by permission - not civil prescription by totalitarian force. Likewise, its registration as marriage is a matter of religious freedom.

Rev. Ken

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

31 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
What Color Panties Is Jade Wearing? 37 min 1 THE Mayor 1 2
Gay couple have day in church 58 min The Troll Stopper 54
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 1 hr The Troll Stopper 54,633
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr Yahoo 49,229
Uganda's Anti-Gay Law Masks The Real Scandal - ... 1 hr Rainbow Kid 4
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 3 hr Los Angeles 200,551
Supreme Court: Was gay marriage settled in 1972... 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 116
Texas: Gay-marriage ban best for children 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 733
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 4 hr Frankie Rizzo 3,936
Smithsonian adds LGBT history to museum collection 9 hr juls 9
•••
•••