Jump to content

Civil Religion Is Greatest Threat To Xty.

Recommended Posts

Contrary to what most conservative Christians claim, secularism - humanism - atheism is not the greatest threat to authentic Christianity, Civil religion is!


Civil Religion: (by BrotherRog)


Key Person or Founder,

Date, Location:

The "founding fathers" and head leaders of one's nation.


Key Writitings:


Chartering documents such as constitutions;

famous speeches and letters, etc. Often

included are idealized myths describing the

creation of one's nation.


Who is God:


A generic concept of God is embraced.

This God is usually Deistic and has a

special love for one's particular nation.

In extreme forms, one's nation is equated

to being God.

Who is Jesus:


Jesus is not a part of this religion but

references and allusions to some of His

sayings is sometimes employed.

Who is the Holy Spirit:


The Holy Spirit is not a part of this religion.


How to be Saved:


Salvation is typically understood as acheiving

a certain level of material wealth, success, and

status - "the good life." This is generally said

to be attained via rugged individualism and

"pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps."


What Happens After Death:


Death is usually denied but those who die

serving one's nation - especially in the military -

are honored and venerated on special holidays.

People who die such deaths are remembered

and it is assumed that God has a special place

for them.


Other Beliefs or Practices:


National anthems, pledges of allegiance, and

vague blessings are shared at public events.

The hymns and prayers of other religions are

often co-opted and altered as well. Flags,

national birds, crests, etc. are the primary symbols.

Blindly supporting the policies of the current

national leaders is expected. Dissent is discouraged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from an email I received:


Civil Religion: The 500 Pound Gorilla

by Norman B. Bendroth


This past Christmas Vice President Dick and Lynne Cheney sent out what is certainly the most brazen Christmas card I have ever heard of. It read: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"


This is not the first time a power broker has co-opted the name of God to baptize the agenda of the empire, Pax Americana or otherwise. One thinks of Emperor Constantine's soldiers, whose armor was inscribed with the words In Hoc Signo Vinces ("In This Sign You Will Conquer"); and the banner of the Crusaders, Deus Vult ("God wills it"), as they swashbuckled their way through the Holy Land; and, in the last century, the slogan Gott Mit Uns ("God with us") which adorned the belt buckles of the Nazis.


Late last year, Lt. General William Boykin gave new meaning to the song "Onward Christian Soldiers" when he spoke of America's "Christian army" waging a holy war against the "idol" of Islam's false god, and the "spiritual battle" we're fighting against "a guy named Satan" while pursuing Muslim terrorists.


Even President Bush used an old gospel song to describe American vigilance. In his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2003, he said, "There is power, power, wonder-working power in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people." Those who know their hymnody remember the original as, "there is wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb." To exchange the salvific work of Christ for the “goodness” of the American people is sacrilege. Even Democratic candidates have waded into these murky waters, with Howard Dean declaring that the book of Job was his favorite New Testament book (oops!).


What is going on here? It is called American civil religion. Sociologist Robert Bellah coined the term in a groundbreaking article in 1967 to describe the set of rituals, doctrines, and allegiances that develop around nation-states and which become the sacred myth that binds citizens in common allegiance. The myth bestows a sacred canopy over the origins, destiny, and purpose of the State.


Daniel Marsh of Boston University has pointed out, in his book Unto the Generations: the Roots of True Americanism, the similarities between biblical history and American history. America's book of Genesis is the Mayflower Compact. Its exodus is the Declaration of Independence. The book of the law is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Its psalms include the “Star Spangled Banner” and “God Bless America.” Lincoln's Second Inaugural address is its prophetic denouncement. (Congressman Tom DeLay has even gone so far to tell an audience at the Christian Coalition's Road to Victory Conference that American democracy is a perfect governmental expression of an inerrant Bible).


Rituals include saying the pledge of allegiance in our schools, singing the “Star Spangled Banner” at sporting events, having parades and ceremonies honoring the war dead, and invoking the blessing of some higher power at political events. The virtues of democracy, individual liberty, the right to private property, family, free enterprise, and a commitment to faith are part of its doctrines. Faith in this system of thought is vague and undefined. It is best exemplified in President Eisenhower's statement, "This country was founded on faith and I don't care in what."


Civil religion provides religious means and modes for the expression of patriotism. Civil religion and Christian religion can look deceptively similar, so much so that it is easy to merge the two into one, like many American churches do on the Sunday near the Fourth of July. It is not a state religion, but rather a set of practices and beliefs that renders sacred national values, national heroes, national history, and national ideals.


While there is nothing inherently wrong with civil religion (it often functions as a civic "glue"), it should not be confused with Christian faith. What makes American civil religion distinctive from other nations’ is that we have always believed that we are special and have a "manifest destiny" (as the Pilgrims put it) - a sacred and noble cause bestowed from above. The Pilgrims saw themselves as a "New Israel" making an exodus from Europe to freedom and plenty in a new Promised Land. From the outset, we have seen ourselves as God's chosen people with a special (if not divine) mission to export liberty and light to the world.


Some have defended Gen. Boykin or the religious language that embellishes President Bush's speech, accusing their critics of being "anti-Christian" or "politically correct." While may or may not be true, more fundamentally it is just plain bad theology.


To equate the kingdom of God with the United States of America is idolatry of the highest order. The commonwealth of God is a global community that transcends all nation states and embraces all peoples. Rather than endorsing any imperial power, it calls all such pretensions to power into question.


The Cheneys’ greeting card was sent during the season when churches read Mary's Magnificat, which promises that in the Messiah God "has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly" (Luke 1:52). During World War II, American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr was quick to remind us that the Axis powers were not entirely evil, nor were Allied actions entirely good. To cast the American struggle against terrorism as solely a "conflict between good and evil" is to miss the log in our own eye (Matthew 7:3). This is not asserting a moral relativism that equates American overreaching with terrorism. It is to say that sin is never privileged to any particular people or nation, but runs right through the center of every human heart - including every American heart.


Because of the danger of confusing civil religion with Christian faith, Christians must be careful what kinds of symbols are present in their churches as well. When Christians participate in worship on Sunday mornings, they are gathering to proclaim their first allegiance and to acknowledge that all of life is lived under the government of God. Consequently, the symbols we display there point to our ultimate loyalties, what is truly real: the cross, the baptismal font, the open Bible, the altar, the bread and cup, to name a few.


Why then do we display the American flag in our sanctuaries when Scripture teaches that all nations will come under the judgment of a righteous God (Psalm 2:1-5) and we are part of a worldwide communion of faith? My Canadian Christian friends are amazed when they find American flags in our sanctuaries. The flag is a national symbol, not a religious one. As Christians, we are called to transcend national divisions. Baptism, not the flag, affirms our unity as God's people throughout the world.


By carelessly endorsing the religion and the policies of the State (read: empire), Christians forfeit their prophetic role to be critics-in-residence and to call the State to its highest principles. Martin Luther reminded the pastors of his day that one of their tasks was to "whisper the Law of God into the magistrate's ear." There's a 500-lb. gorilla called American civil religion sitting in the middle of most American sanctuaries and they are not even aware of it.


The challenge for Christians and all people of faith today is this: Will we prescribe to a national religion in service of empire, or will we follow the Lord of the nations in service of Shalom?


(Norman B. Bendroth is currently interim pastor at St. John's United Church of Christ in Grand Rapids, MI.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush Campaign Attempting To Forge Church-Based Political Machine


Effort Jeopardizes Tax Exemption Of Houses Of Worship, Charges Americans United


A plan by the George W. Bush reelection campaign to enlist 1,600 "friendly" houses of worship in Pennsylvania is a misguided attempt to build a church-based political machine that should be dropped immediately, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.


Americans United asserts that the plan jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of churches and could divide congregations with partisan politics.


"This is the most shocking example of politicizing churches I've ever seen," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "The last thing this country needs is a church-based political machine. The Bush campaign should abandon this plan immediately.


"By enrolling churches in an election scheme, the Bush campaign is endangering those churches' tax exemptions," Lynn continued. "That's bad enough, but the introduction of partisan politics into the pews will also divide congregations and entangle politics and religion in very unhealthy ways."


An e-mail from the Pennsylvania affiliate of the Bush Campaign says, "The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 'Friendly Congregations' in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis."


The e-mail says the campaign would like to "identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general information to other supporters." It goes on to say, "We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation."


In a telephone conversation with AU's Lynn, Luke Bernstein, the Pennsylvania Bush staffer who sent the e-mail, confirmed that the program is under way.


Lynn noted that the Internal Revenue Code strictly forbids churches, which are tax exempt, from endorsing or opposing candidates for public office or intervening in partisan campaigns directly or indirectly.


Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jeep



I just witnessed the wedding of my grandaughter. It was held in a Church and the officiant was an officer of the church. I was led to believe that he was also an officer of the State of Colorado and simultaneously granted certain civil rights as well as religious rights to the happy couple.


Is this an example of the threat of civil religion to Xty, the separation of the offices?


In my view, nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question! At first blush, I'd say no, that this isn't what I had in mind as being an example of Civil Religion. But then, upon further consideration, there is actually more secular/civil background and basis for the institution of marriage than there is religious - at least Jewish or Christian ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

From an email from the PRISM E-pistle:



by Christopher Klopp


Since the founding of the United States, religion and nationalism have been rather cozy bedfellows. Despite the official separation of church and state, it is clear that civil servants often use religion to their political advantage, and that religious citizens often consider their leaders to be operating within an ostensibly “Judeo-Christian” worldview. Presidents claim to be (and are often seen by citizens as) divinely appointed leaders, while the United States often presents itself as a “city on a hill,” bringing the “gospel” of “freedom and democracy” to the world. Underlying all of this is a common conception that the United States was founded on Christian principles by our “godly” forefathers. This is, of course, a myth, for as Robert Bellah points out, our “civil religion,” that combination of Christian symbols and national self-love, bears only a superficial similarity to the religion of Jesus and the New Testament:


The words and acts of the founding fathers, especially the first few presidents, shaped the form and tone of the civil religion as it has been maintained ever since. Though much is selectively derived from Christianity, this religion is clearly not itself Christianity. For one thing, neither Washington nor Adams nor Jefferson mentions Christ in his inaugural address; nor do any of the subsequent presidents, although not one of them fails to mention God… The God of the civil religion is not only rather “unitarian,” he is also on the austere side, much more related to order, law, and right than to salvation and love (Robert N. Bellah, click here for source).


Nevertheless, most American Christians find it enormously difficult to grasp Bellah’s insight. In fact, among evangelical Christians civil religion seems to be on the rise. Witness, for example, the evangelical community’s overwhelming support for Bush’s war for oil in Iraq, their unquestioning allegiance to him, and their theologically misguided belief that God has hand-picked Bush to lead the world to “freedom and democracy.” Witness also the pseudo-religious language of “good versus evil” employed not only by those in political power, but by Christian ministers as well. We are a nation “under God”; we love and defend “freedom.” They are the very personification of evil, and want nothing but the end of “free” civilization. This mentality affects a broad spectrum of Christians, from reactionary fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell to pastors in the average church. Christians believe these myths and perpetuate them as if they were the essence of the gospel, while in church sanctuaries crosses hang next to American flags, and on Independence Day congregations gather to sing hymns to America.


Nationalistic Christianity is not a new or surprising phenomenon. Tragically, Christians for centuries have been unable to see that the “religion” of nationalism is not the religion practiced and taught by Jesus. A brief comparison makes this clear. Jesus’ universalist vision of the kingdom of God expanding beyond political borders has largely been abandoned in favor of the idea that God loves our people more than any other. Jesus’ call to a life of voluntary poverty and simplicity has been ignored as Christians rush to the defense of capitalism and gross consumerism. His preaching of peace and reconciliation between enemies has been lost amid the call to holy war. The agenda of American society and the agenda of the Kingdom of God are not compatible, yet many evangelicals continue to think that they are.


Ironically, it is often those who consider themselves the most “orthodox” who most blatantly repudiate the teachings of Jesus by accepting a theology that justifies our anti-Christian social order. Evangelicals would be the first to claim the “authority of the Scriptures,” the “lordship of Jesus,” the “reality of hell,” and any number of other seemingly orthodox ideas, but when it comes to drawing a theological distinction between the Kingdom of God and America, they are absolutely heretical.


Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder attempts to point out to American Christians the incongruity between their orthodox claims and their practical imitation of Jesus of Nazareth. He writes, “We do not here advocate an unheard-of modern understanding of Jesus; we ask rather that the implications of what the church has always said about Jesus as Word of the Father, as true God and true Man, be taken more seriously, as relevant to our social problems.” Yoder claims that he is making an appeal to “classical catholic Christian convictions properly understood.” Stanley Hauwerwas writes that Yoder “is trying to force us to recognize that in spite of what appear to be orthodox christological affirmations, we are embedded in social practices that deny that Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection make any difference.” (All quotes from Stanley Hauerwas, A BETTER HOPE: RESOURCES FOR A CHURCH CONFRONTING CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND POSTMODERNITY [brazos Press, 2000].)


When we look at the comfortable relationship between evangelical Christianity and American society, Yoder’s analysis seems apt. If we are a people named by the ‘Good News,’ why do we insist on delivering bad news to the people of the world in the form of overconsumption, war, pollution, greed, and economic imperialism? Why do we claim to be followers of Jesus and yet expend great theological effort to justify a government whose actions represent the antithesis of the teachings of our Lord? If Jesus commanded us to serve each other in love, why do we identify our “gospel” with power, wealth, and domination? It seems that we have, as Paul puts it, “believed another gospel.”


Is there any hope that American Christians may unlearn this false religion, or are we so mired in our culture’s way of thinking that we can no longer recognize the radical nature of God’s Kingdom? Any hope of salvation must surely lie in a return to the sources of our faith, to the Bible and to the example of Jesus. To be truly Christian the people called evangelicals need to remember what our name signifies, to re-learn the gospel. But to remember we need prophets, whose task, as Walter Brueggemann says (in THE PROPHETIC IMAGINATION [Fortress, 2001]), “is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.” Immersed as we are in the dominant culture, we desperately need examples of how to follow Christ authentically. Since mainstream theology in America has become “a faithful servant of the status quo,” we need a prophetic witness to show us the truly radical nature of Christian orthodoxy.


One of the most challenging of these witnesses is the Catholic Worker Movement (CW). Founded during the Depression, this predominately Roman Catholic social justice movement shares many traits in common with evangelical Protestantism. Noticing these connections may help us to see that a truly orthodox Christianity should lead to a rejection of the American ethos, not a legitimation of it.

(Tune in next week for Part 2 of this essay, in which the author profiles the important work and philosophy of the Catholic Worker Movement. Christopher Klopp is earning his Master’s degree in theological studies at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More examples of the real thing..


"Christian piety has all too often meant withdrawal from the world and

from people - it has led to a sort of transcendent egoism and an

unwillingness to share suffering. It has lacked human warmth. But the

world has risen in protest against this form of piety, this arrogance,

this indifference to the world's sorrow. And only the living faith of

the reborn can withstand this protest. Care for the needs of another

human being, even bodily care: that is the essence of true piety. Bread

for myself is a material question; but bread for my neighbor is a

spiritual one." -Jacques Maritain


"We have to begin to see what Christianity really is, that 'our God is a

living fire; though God slay me, yet will I trust God.' We have to think

in terms of the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and have this

readiness to suffer. 'We have not yet resisted unto blood.' We have not

yet loved our neighbor with the kind of love that is a precept to the

extent of laying down our own life for him/her. And our life very often

means our money, money that we have sweated for; it means our bread, our

daily living, our rent, our clothes. We haven't shown ourselves ready to

lay down our life. This is a new precept, it is a new way, it is the new

people we are supposed to become." -Dorothy Day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klopp report continued (started in the post two before this one):



by Christopher Klopp


(Editor’s note: In last week’s ePistle, Christopher Klopp asked, “Is there any hope that American Christians may unlearn this false [civil] religion, or are we so mired in our culture’s way of thinking that we can no longer recognize the radical nature of God’s Kingdom?” And he asserted, “To be truly Christian the people called evangelicals need to remember what our name signifies, to re-learn the gospel…, we desperately need examples of how to follow Christ authentically….” Here follows part 2 of this essay, a discussion of the example we find in the Catholic Worker Movement.)


One of the most challenging of these witnesses is the Catholic Worker Movement (CW). Founded during the Depression, this predominately Roman Catholic social justice movement shares many traits in common with evangelical Protestantism. Noticing these connections may help us to see that a truly orthodox Christianity should lead to a rejection of the American ethos, not a legitimation of it.


In 1933 when the CATHOLIC WORKER newspaper was first published, Catholicism was engaged in the project of “Americanization.” Having begun its career in the United States as an “outsider” to the dominant evangelical culture, subject to its prejudices and fears, the R.C. Church was working hard to convince Protestant Americans that Catholics were equally patriotic and could be model citizens. In the words of Archbishop James Ireland:

“There is no conflict between the Catholic Church and America. I could not utter one syllable that would belie, however remotely, either the Church or the Republic, and when I assert, as I now solemnly do, that the principles of the Church are in thorough harmony with the interests of the Republic, I know in the depths of my soul that I speak the truth...”


Although evangelicalism had long been the national religion of the country, and Catholicism a newcomer, neither group saw any inherent conflict between nationalism and Christian religion. But when the first issue of the CATHOLIC WORKER newspaper addressed itself to unemployed workers during the Depression, it clearly sided with the victims of America’s military-industrial complex and racial prejudice, thereby calling into question the validity of a close relationship between church and state.


The CW called Catholics back to their traditional theology, reminding them that the teachings of Jesus applied to all Christians (not just the saints), and that the militarism, capitalism and ethnocentrism inherent in the American ethos was incompatible with the best of Catholic teaching. Their project was essentially the same as Yoder’s, to exhort people who considered themselves “orthodox” to live as if their orthodoxy meant something.


Although conservatives in the Catholic hierarchy saw their radicalism as an “innovation,” Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin repeatedly emphasized their continuity with the tradition. In her writing, Day often drew on “the words of Christ who is with us always...our Pope, our saints, our priests,” and proclaimed that “our manifesto is the sermon on the mount.” Their intention was not to create a new theology, but to “blow the lid off” the “dynamite of the Church.” The founders of the CW believed that the church could be a dynamic force for change, if it would simply follow its own teachings!


As Day and Maurin saw it, the central dynamic doctrine of the church was the Incarnation. They took Jesus’ parable of the Sheep and the Goats (Matt 25) literally, finding Jesus in the “disguise” of ordinary people. This was a theme Day emphasized many times in her writings: "If you feed them, clothe them, shelter them, visit them in prison…, serve the sick, in general perform the works of mercy, you are serving Christ and alleviating poverty by direct action. If you are persecuting them, killing them, throwing them in prison, you are doing it to Christ. He said so… We must do it for love of Jesus, in His humanity, for love of our brother, for love of our enemy."


The christology of the CW emphasized both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus, but made no false dichotomy between the “Historical Jesus” and the “Christ of Faith.” Instead, they stressed that since Jesus is Lord, his life on earth was normative for Christian discipleship. As Eileen Egan writes: "The dilemma facing Christians from the fourth century onward, of how to get around the Sermon on the Mount with its hard sayings of loving enemies and praying for persecutors without renouncing Jesus, did not present itself to Dorothy Day and the majority of those in the Catholic Worker movement. These and other hard sayings were at the core of the life of those committed to the movement."


Their commitment to follow the example of Jesus and obey the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount was expressed in direct action and personal involvement with the lives of those people who had been victimized by the capitalist system. It was Day’s willingness to personally care for the homeless victims of the Depression by inviting several men to stay at her apartment that gave birth to the first “house of hospitality.” There are now hundreds of these houses throughout the United States.


Like evangelicals, the CW places more emphasis on person-to-person direct action than on government intervention. In one essay Dorothy Day says, “…it is not to discuss solutions proffered by government or city agencies that I wish to write…” Instead, she insists: “War, and the poverty of peoples which leads to war, are the great problems of the day and the fundamental solution is the personal response which each of us makes to the message of Jesus Christ.”


CW volunteers live in the ghettos and barrios; they do not merely visit. They become personally involved in the lives of addicts, prostitutes, AIDS victims and criminals. They show through their praxis that God’s love calls for a rejection of the present order and they strive to bring justice to the world as it is. While it is true that many evangelicals are also personally engaged in social activism, it often seems that the content of their activism is contrary to the spirit of the gospel. The majority of evangelicals in this country are middle-class supporters of socially conservative political agendas. They are relatively unsympathetic to the concerns of marginalized people, they give rather little of their time and money to charities, and yet they continue to claim that personal relationship is the way to change society.


At one time in their history evangelicals recognized that a personal love for Jesus and a respect for the Bible demanded active participation in the “works of mercy.” Evangelicals were at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement and the effort to gain rights for women. They created hospitals and soup kitchens, and their charitable efforts helped to improve the quality of life for many people. Their piety and their social action were united. Unfortunately, the social conscience of most modern evangelicals seems to have atrophied.


My friendship with Catholic Workers and my study of their history and philosophy has taught me that many of the values they hold and practice are exactly the values held by conservative evangelicals. Day and Maurin called for a “return to the sources” of the faith, for an orthodox theology, and a commitment to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Hopefully the witness of the CW may serve to remind evangelicals of our heritage, and to call us to examine the content of the orthodox theology in which we claim to believe.


Perhaps if more evangelicals would heed the call of Christ in the radical manner of the CW, they would come to understand, like Day and Maurin, that Jesus is most truly found in the disguise of the poor and broken. Perhaps if we resisted the temptation to make our theology the servant of anti-Christian political agendas we could be shaped by the Bible’s prophetic call to practice justice in this world, and learn how to live the “Good News” in the United States.


(Christopher Klopp is earning his Master’s degree in theological studies at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Philadelphia.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

There have not been too many responses to this thread. Is it because most of us agree with the premise that Civil religion is a threat to authentic Christianity; or is it because people disagree with it, but don't feel moved to argue it; or something else? I think the U.S. is steeped with Civil religion at the moment and that it's creeped up on us as with the proverbial frog in the pot of water that is gradually heated to boiling (i.e. the frog gets cooked as opposed to jumping out as if it had been dropped into a pot of already hot water).

Link to comment
Share on other sites



The fervor of "civil religion" built very slowly, so slowly that many Christians did not even realize that they were being led down a path away from what they once stood for. It's great to be patriotic, it's even greater to be a Christian, but when we start melding the two together, or letting our patriotism overtake our faith, we have lost our way - our focus. When we take our eyes off of Christ, and start relying on other things (patriotism, politics, etc.) to make us feel validated, we start "changing" the truths as taught in the Bible, to help us justify our "new" religion. As I stated on another forum, "Many Christians have thrown off the mantle of Christ, wrapped themselves in the flag, and taken on the agenda of a political party." To me, that epitomizes "civil" religion.


My two cents worth on "civil religion."


God Bless,


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service