FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Evidence that Lincoln was Atheist? (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Evidence that Lincoln was Atheist?
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
The Instructor of the BNU course on SOTG blithely stated that Lincoln was known to be an atheist who used God for oratorical effect. Since I don't know how long it will take him to get back to me on this, I thought I'd put it to Hatrack. So, if we throw out all evidence that Lincoln thinks someone else might have seen, what evidence are we left with to suppose whether he believed in God or not?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Verily the Younger
Member
Member # 6705

 - posted      Profile for Verily the Younger   Email Verily the Younger         Edit/Delete Post 
Does it make a difference whether he believed in God or not? Not trying to be snotty, I'm just wondering why it matters.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Belle
Member
Member # 2314

 - posted      Profile for Belle   Email Belle         Edit/Delete Post 
I think the point would be you can't know. We can't know he definitely believed in God anymore than this instructor can know he was an athiest.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Because the instructor of this online course just said it like it something all intelligent people know.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Are there any personal letters he sent to friends or family?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
For the longest time people said they had proof he was gay to. Seems to me that people just can't accept that once in our history we had a truly great man as president.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, yeah, "A house divided" which I assume aired on PBS was big on the "might be gay" hints. Which is why I thought, if there is evidence that he is an atheist, I'm sure they would have brought it up.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Portabello
Member
Member # 7710

 - posted      Profile for Portabello   Email Portabello         Edit/Delete Post 
Either that, or different people want to claim a truly great man as a member of their group.
Posts: 751 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
PBS think tank: Who was Lincoln? This should be interesting. It dates from 1996, the heyday of revisionist histories. I did mean to read the sandberg biography and not just search the net, but for some reason the software won't stay resident on Windows XP. And I'm lazy.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
I fail to see how either being an athiest or being gay would make Lincoln not a great man. And I think that's pretty much the point of these relatively pointless things. Groups of people who are told that they are intrinsically bad want to claim an honored historical figure as one of their own. They care and the people who think that they are just obviously bad care, but I don't see why I should.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IdemosthenesI
Member
Member # 862

 - posted      Profile for IdemosthenesI   Email IdemosthenesI         Edit/Delete Post 
Can't we just accept it on faith that Lincoln was an atheist? There may not be any real evidence to back it up, or there might be tons. None of that matters if I believe fervently enough that he didn't believe in anything fervently.

[Big Grin]

Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
"Seems to me that people just can't accept that once in our history we had a truly great man as president."

I'd suggest it's the contrary. To some people, he would not be a truly great man unless he were an atheist. That said, I've seen ample personal correspondence from Lincoln which suggested that, yes, his religious faith was largely a sham. Particularly as a youth, Lincoln was loudly and stridently anti-christian, and only toned it down when people suggested it would hurt his political career.

[ April 29, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
This part is funny:
quote:
Well, I think he would be dismayed at the lack ofconfidence in government because, after all, his whole campaign, hiswhole life was devoted to affirming the importance of a union. That'sgovernment. And nowadays, I'm afraid we find a little too much ofwhat I would call a neo-anarchism, a belief that government's evil atany level.

MR. FONER: That's Lincoln's own party, primarily.

MR. BOORSTIN: Well --

MR. FONER: He would have been surprised by the Republicans thatare all saying this.

MR. BOORSTIN: -- I think he would have been surprised to hearRepublicans saying it.

MR. WATTENBERG: Do you buy that? I don't want to let that gounchallenged. I mean, would Lincoln be a liberal Democrat today?

MR. DONALD: No. I think, first of all, Lincoln was a party man. Hestuck to his political affiliation. He was a Whig after the WhigParty died. He would have been a Republican after the RepublicanParty may in turn die. I don't think he would ever have switched, no.He did not like Jacksonians in general. He would not have been aDemocrat. He would have --

Keeping in mind that this was written in 1996 [Big Grin] Back when republicans were conservatives.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mothertree
Member
Member # 4999

 - posted      Profile for mothertree   Email mothertree         Edit/Delete Post 
This interview is more specific. I guess my upset is in the idea that he uses God for oratorical purposes. If he does so, he would be both lying and taking the name of God in vain.
quote:
RAY SUAREZ: A lot has been written speculatively about Lincoln's religious life. A lot of attention paid to the fact that he wasn't regularly churched, not brought up within the walls of a particular denomination. But you place him squarely in a denomination, under the influence of specific preachers and teachers of the time. This is a real departure from what previous people have written about Lincoln's religious life.

RONALD WHITE: It is. And I did not start there, but as I sought again to ask the question, "what are the antecedents, what are the sources for this speech?" I came especially to discover that the minister here at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, Phineas Densmore Gurley, was a forgotten resource. And I was able to place Lincoln at several of Gurley's sermons where we have the complete text of the sermon, and ask, what was he preaching? And I'm suggesting that Lincoln's gravitation to the meaning of providence, we can see much of this in the preaching that Lincoln heard.

RAY SUAREZ: And really it's less of a mystery what his mind was religiously...

RONALD WHITE: It's less of a mysterious. I have... when I teach at UCLA, my students would say I'm spiritual but not religious. Well, perhaps Lincoln was theological but not religious. For whatever reasons, he did not identify himself as a member of a denomination, but he did attend two Presbyterian churches where he heard a rather consistent, thoughtful approach to the theme of providence.


Of course, Academic history is a lot like science with thesis, antithesis, and the synthesis kind of arrived at by what sticks to the succeeding generation.

Anyway, I think the idea that Lincoln is an atheist is just wishful thinking by atheists. The idea that he is an evangelical christian would be equally so. He was contemporary with Mormonism so we know he wouldn't have been that "if only he'd known".

Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Googling this, I learned a few things I did not know. Apparently Lincoln wrote a book while a lawyer that argued against the dissemination of the Christian faith and attempted to disprove its validity, but a friend talked him out of publishing it; copies still exist, but the book was never released. When he ran for Congress against a reverend, he was called a blasphemer and an infidel; specifically, it was said that he had publicly said that it was most likely that Christ was just another illegitimate child. When asked why he did not refute these charges of blasphemy, Lincoln replied that it was because they were accurate and too easily proven.

The mention of God in the Emancipation Proclamation was added at the recommendation of his cabinet. When asked about his Thanksgiving addresses to the nation by Judge Nelson, he replied, "Oh, this is some of Seward's nonsense. It pleases the fools!"

In fact, he seems to be a very obvious skeptic. On the matter of being approached -- repeatedly -- by people claiming to know the will of God, especially as regarded his war on the South, he wrote, "I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and by religious men who are certain they represent the Divine Will. I hope it will not be irreverent in me to say, that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed He would reveal it directly to me."

------

"I guess my upset is in the idea that he uses God for oratorical purposes."

Why? Every president since Washington has done it.

[ April 29, 2005, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
sndrake
Member
Member # 4941

 - posted      Profile for sndrake   Email sndrake         Edit/Delete Post 
There's an interesting article on Beliefnet with an author of a book on Lincoln. Short version: Lincoln was very private about his beliefs in his later years and so most of what people say is guesswork. This author's own personal belief is that Lincoln was an agnostic who struggled with the issues of belief/nonbelief:

Lincoln's inner life

quote:
Guelzo calls Lincoln "a typical Victorian doubter" like "Moby Dick" author Herman Melville. According to fellow writer Nathaniel Hawthorne, Melville could "neither believe or be comfortable in his unbelief."

The article has some nice info on Linoln's early upbringing in a Calvinist household and his discovery of Enlightenment authors.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
Just because he didn't believe in Christ, doesn't mean he didn't believe in God.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I hope it will not be irreverent in me to say, that if it is probable that God would reveal His will to others, on a point so connected with my duty, it might be supposed He would reveal it directly to me."
He definitely understood the idea of stewardship. I love this statement.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Every President including Washington.

Washington was very closed about his personal religious beliefs, but while his public speeches often exalted Christianity, his personal correspondence does not (I believe the sum total of mentions of Jesus in hundreds of pages of documents is zero, for instance).

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
For the longest time people said they had proof he was gay to. Seems to me that people just can't accept that once in our history we had a truly great man as president.
OH BECAUSE GAYS CAN'T BE GREAT MEN, IS THAT IT????
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah, Russell. When I meant "since Washington," I really meant "since he was inaugurated," not "since he left office." [Smile]

I suppose I could have said "every president," but that would have lacked panache. *grin*

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Lincoln was a social progressive in the 1800s. On that alone, it's a pretty good bet he wasn't a Christian in a traditional sense. There's plenty of other things that suggest this as well. I thought this was reasonably well-known. Apparently I was mistaken.

I was talking about whether or not he was actually an atheist instead of a deist or some such..

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Abolitionism was famously a Christian cause in the North. It is not axiomatic that he was atheist because he was a progressive.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
OH BECAUSE GAYS CAN'T BE GREAT MEN, IS THAT IT????
Of course they can. But the people saying he was gay don't appear to share this opinion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jebus202
Member
Member # 2524

 - posted      Profile for jebus202   Email jebus202         Edit/Delete Post 
HOMOPHOBE!!!!
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
Yeah kat, I wasn't talking about abolitionism (although I'd dispute it being famously a Christian thing). I was talking about social progressivism, which, from what I know, was not a hallmark of most mainstream Christian sects in the 1800s. Maybe you have information that contradicts this that you could share.

edit: I should say was opposed by most mainstream Christian sects in the 1800s.

[ April 29, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
Why would you say that? The people who brought up "evidence" of Lincoln being Gay were doing so in a negative manner. Its a shame that people would think that way, but they do.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
You don't consider abolitionism to be a socially progressive cause?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
It's a cause, not an orientation. There are plenty of reasons to support any one cause. That doesn't make you a progressive.

edit: Or what fugu said, much better than I.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Being solely abolitionist at the time didn't constitute being a social progressive, though many social progressives were abolitionists.

Social progressive implies abolitionist does not mean abolitionist implies social progressive.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
So someone who supports a socially progressive cause is not actually socially progressive?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
There are republicans who are for gay marriage even though most people for gay marriage are democrats.

Does supporting gay marriage make someone an adherent to democrat's ideals?

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
So you are using socially progressive as group name instead of a descriptor? Socially Progressive instead of progressive in regards to social things.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
It's a not an intrinsicly social progressive cause. It's a cause that social progressives believed in, but was supported by other groups of people for other, non-progressive reasons as well.

Regardless, even if the mainstream Christians believed in the socially progressive rationale for abolition, that doesn't change the fact that they opposed most of the other things on the progressive agenda and the progressive orientation in and of itself.

edit: There's a reason why most social reformers of the 19th century regarded religion in general and Christianity specifically as the enemy of progress.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
So socially progressive is all or nothing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Note I said adherent to democrat's ideals, not member of the democratic party.

A set of positions such as describe the social progressive's position in the period we're discussing is not some thing where agreement with one, a few, or even all necessarily means membership in the movement (though if one agrees with all the rate of membership in the movement was likely near 100%). Social progressivism implies a common agreement on the principles motivating those positions. Someone who wants slavery ended so all the blacks can be sent back to africa because he hates looking at them (and such people did exist at this time) is not a social progressive despite supporting a socially progressive opinion.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
So, it is all or nothing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post 
*sigh* No, it's not all or nothing. However, Lincoln supported causes and followed an orientation towards things that most mainstream Christian sects were against during that time period. These causes and this orientation were considered socially progressive. Thus, when I said that he was a social progressive and that this made it a good bet that he wasn't a mainstream Christian that's what I meant. I honestly don't know what you're trying to say. Maybe if you wrote more than a sentence.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Though yes, social progressive is a label applied to a coherent group of people in the study of the period of history we're talking about. People are complex entities, and calling someone a member of a commonly understood group X merely by holding a single position in common with that group will only result in fuzzy explanations. Instead, it might be said that a non-socially progressive person had a particular position in common with the social progressives.

For instance, I predict you'd find almost all black people in the period were against slavery, but that there were a number of black people who could not well be termed social progressives.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not saying its all or nothing, but it sure sounds like you're saying its anything is everything, kat.

It seems you're saying that some theoretical person who holds a position in common with each major movement at a time (and I've known people so conflicted) is a member of all those movements, which sounds like a bizarre way to classify people.

For instance, Dagonee is a strong proponent of gay marriage (edit: though as a secular institution, but still), a commonly liberal position, but I think it would be silly to call him a liberal.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Your support for Lincoln being an atheist boils down to "I've classified him with the group of people who were often atheist."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
His repeated condemnations of religion in his early political career don't count as evidence? Odd . . .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
You haven't produced those. Where's the evidence?

Also, not definitive. There's quite a large body of work from C.S. Lewis' youth condemning God and Christianity as well.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stephan
Member
Member # 7549

 - posted      Profile for Stephan   Email Stephan         Edit/Delete Post 
Also, comdemning Christianity isn't the same as condemning religion.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
First, I'm not among those arguing that Lincoln was an atheist, though I'm pretty sure he was, or at least a weak agnostic.

That he was not a Christian should be fervently clear from anyone who has looked cursorily at the subject. A fine quotation:

quote:
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
And I would appreciate your response on the Dagonee example, btw.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
1. When did he write this.
2. What else did he write.
3. Why are you supporting statements that you don't agree with.
4. Theoretical authority doesn't work here. The true gurus (Dag and CT) back up their claims to a group consensus of experts.

As for Dag, I think he is liberal. I don't think he is a Liberal, but labels are generally useless when applied to individuals.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
Can I make a suggestion to fugu or Squick? Post a list of socially progressive causes and Lincoln's views on them. I can't tell from how you're using the term precisely what you mean. I've seen the temperance movement considered socially progressive in history texts, and that was largely Christian.

In the post-War era, Williams Jennings Bryan was considered Progressive, and he and a large portion of his followers were Christian. (I realize this is a different era than Lincoln's.)

If you could list the major tenets of Social Progressives it would go a long way to clarifying the discussion.

Edit: Fugu, or what it's worth, my preferred term now is "equal civil marriage rights for same sex couples." No biggie, and I appreciate you making the secular distinction.

[ April 29, 2005, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and then there's this quotation:

quote:
When I do good, I feel good;
when I do bad, I feel bad.
That's my religion.


Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Dates and sources, fugu. Those are important in history.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2