Maybe It’s Time for a Different Kind of “Memorial Day”

On our nation’s annual commemoration of those U.S. service people who gave their lives  I feel compelled to ask: What if we had an (inter)national holiday to honor non-combatants and civilians who were sacrificed to the eternal war-machine?

Advertisements

About C_Lambeth

I currently live in the Pacific Northwest. I graduated from Missouri State University with a Bachelor's of Science and from George Fox Seminary (now Portland Seminary) with a Master's of Divinity. In addition to knowing Christ and helping others know him, I am passionate about peace, the environment, Christian feminism, justice for all (not just the wealthy) and being a lifelong learner. Please feel free to comment on any of the posts here or to suggest new posts altogether. Thank you for reading me! -CL
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Maybe It’s Time for a Different Kind of “Memorial Day”

  1. Justin A. says:

    Do you mean the eternal war machines of the Muslim world?

  2. C_Lambeth says:

    No, I mean humanity’s unending thirst for war (Christians’, Muslims’ and everyone else’s too), but thanks for asking.

  3. Justin A. says:

    Ok. It does seem like a look at the evidence reveals a difference between them. Christians’ don’t appear to have an unending thirst for war….unlike other peoples mentioned.

    • C_Lambeth says:

      I’m not sure what “evidence” you are talking about, but maybe you should reflect on the Jews, Muslims and Gypsies in Europe during the Crusades and various Inquisitions thereafter, or perhaps all the native inhabitants during the entire history of Western colonization in Africa, Australia, the Americas, India and beyond. Or maybe you should consider all the non-white, non-Christian collateral damage that the USA has inflicted in the Middle East over the past decade. Of course I recognize that the USA has never been a Christian nation, but all George W’s claims to be acting as a “Christian” sure hasn’t helped the perception of Christianity in the world. No, Christians do indeed appear to have an unending thirst for war. Ever since Constantine, some “Christians” have used their faith as a pretext for that human war machine, and I wonder if your apparent distaste of Muslims has led you to support the use of war and torture against them. As you have noted, they are not unique in this facet, but I think it would help your credibility if you acknowledged that when “Christians” take up the sword, they simply are not “following Jesus” and that many so-called Christians have unleashed unspeakable atrocities on the world for the last 1600+ years (and continue to do so).

  4. Justin A. says:

    Whoa, buddy. I thought we were going to be civil. I was just trying to pass on some info to add a little clarity, but when you say, “and I wonder if your apparent distaste of Muslims has led you to support the use of war and torture against them.” you are totally mischaracterizing me. I actually am dedicated to Muslims coming to know Christ and be set free and am living to try to make that happen. So, there is love for Muslims (not Islam), not distaste. I kindly ask for your apology for making a false accusation.

    • C_Lambeth says:

      Take it easy, Justin. That’s why I said “I wonder.” That is an implicit question, not a lack of civility. But let me ask another (just so we’re clear): Are you stating that you are opposed to torture and war?

      • Justin A. says:

        Corbin, even though you say, “I wonder….” it still comes out as an accusatory statement that is offensive and simply detracts from a meaningful discussion.

  5. Justin A. says:

    Yes, humanity has most definitely engaged in lots and lots of war. However, the evidence I was pointing out was that there are 109 war verses in the Quran and the perception in the West is a little off as to how much death and destruction has been caused by Islam. I’m simply trying to keep and even perspective here. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm . I agree that the Crusaders made some mistakes, but it should be noted that they entered into their actions in response to Muslim military takeover. I’m not justifying their actions, but, again, just trying to give context to help add clarity. You make a note of the USA collateral damage in the Middle East over the past decade and that is tragic. Even more tragic is the Muslim to Muslim violence that numerically supersedes the USA’s inflicted casualty count. Again, just wanna add clarity. It’s all evidence for the need for Christ, huh?

    • C_Lambeth says:

      Well, I think that merely saying that “the Crusaders made some mistakes” is gross understatement, and you still have neglected the litany of suffering, persecution and outright war that has been done in “Jesus’ name,” in other times and places. I also contest your claim that more Muslims have died because of their own in-fighting than have been killed by Western forces in the last decade, but I am willing to consider relevant evidence. But even if your claim were true, your “adding perspective” by merely trying to hang my initial post all on Muslims while neglecting non-Muslim violence is… questionable. So would you care to answer my previous question: Are you against torture and war? And to add another relevant one: Given your attempt to “add clarity” to the Crusades, have you considered how it might be turned about regarding which Western nation(s) initiated “military takeover[s]” in the Muslim world in recent history? I suggest that if we want others to be open to Christ, we should probably be against war / torture and be willing to call out our own garbage before we try to blame others (like Muslims).

  6. Justin A. says:

    I haven’t ignored anything. What I hear from you is a quickness to dissect Christianity while seemingly treating lightly the violence perpetuated by Islam. I’m with you that people have done wrong things in the name of Jesus. However, I would not claim that all war is bad. Taking the lead from Romans 13 about evil being punished by government, it follows that governments can make efforts to stop even bigger evils. I’ve heard the numbers on Muslim to Muslim violence, but I’ll check around for numbers. If it turns out that Muslim to Muslim violence trumps anything done by the outside, and given the afore mentioned plethora of ‘go kill ’em’ verses in the Quran would that change your perspective as to where perhaps the balance of the ‘war machine’ might lie?

    • C_Lambeth says:

      You forget, Justin, that my original [post] made no distinction between which people group or religion did what. You were the one who wanted to “clarify” by focusing on the worst representatives of Islam. I think you’re going to have a rough go trying to calculate all the people killed by Christians vs. those killed by Muslims since the dawn of both respective faith systems, but I’m sure it would be an interesting research project. Let me know what you find. Given your answer to my question however, it seems that you are very ok with certain types of war. How does your justification of killing differ from that of Islam? They quote their Holy Scriptures; you quote yours.

  7. Justin A. says:

    You’re right…you did make no distinction in the beginning. And, I’m not offering to research all of history, but I think the numbers are available from the Iraq era or so. That might be interesting. The distinction of difference is this. I’m pretty sure in the Iraq era that more Muslims have been killed by Muslims (IEDs and suicide bombings) than were ever killed by outsiders. I think that’s interesting, but, I don’t have the exact numbers to throw out. I’ll try to look into it when I get a chance. Secondly, when they follow their book, they are supposed to either kill any unbeliever, convert them, tax them because they are an unbeliever, or pillage them. In other words, if this doesn’t happen (and believe me…where I live, I’m thankful it does not 🙂 ) then they are technically disobeying their book. This effectively puts them in a commanded state of conflict when they are around non Muslims. Obviously, Jesus’ message is completely opposite. However, I think there are occasions when war is justified by Scriptures….to stop a great evil, as I mentioned. I would pick WWII as an example, but there could be others. Do you think it was ok to go to war to stop HItler and his allies? In other words, do you see any reasons that could be justifiable for war? I would say, for sure, it’s to be avoided at all costs, but when the writing is on the wall, so-to-speak, then it must be done….thinking the short term cost will bring a long term benefit.

    • C_Lambeth says:

      Justin,
      If we decided to try and do a body count inflicted by so-called “Christians” from the dawn of that religion, I think it would trump (by far) all the other deaths caused by all other religions, maybe even all other religions combined. However, I think “Christians” would come in second in terms of body count when compared with secular/ atheistic regimes over the last 2000 years. This would also make an interesting research project.

      But even if you don’t want to consider Christianity’s sordid history, I still challenge your recent thesis that Muslims have killed more Muslims in the last decade than have Western forces. According to Wikipedia, almost 115,000 people (not including combatants on either side) were killed in the Iraq conflict alone. Most of these were Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War). And that’s just Iraq; it makes no accounting for Muslims killed by Western forces in Libya, Afghanistan or Pakistan.

      Secondly, you accuse Muslims of being charged with “killing unbelievers,” but given your rigid interpretation of the Old Testament in Christian Scriptures, how can you say this with a straight face? Israel was clearly under the impression that they were to violently take the “Holy Land” and kill everyone there who wasn’t a Jew and wouldn’t convert. Furthermore, it seems that you are hesitant to call out Christian violence and war for what it is (past and present), and that you have now adapted Romans 13 to justify war as well. I don’t want to rub you the wrong way here, but it seems that you are being inconsistent (at best) and only following the Old Testament (OT) and Romans 13 when they suit your purposes (at worst). What am I not seeing that you are here?

      Then you speak of Jesus. Yes, Jesus’ message is completely opposite. I am so glad that you mentioned this! Jesus preached that the Kingdom is in our midst. Jesus taught his legitimate followers NOT to fight violence with violence, and that they were to live by Kingdom principles RIGHT NOW (not just passively to wait until they die and “go” to Heaven). The way of Jesus is peace, forgiveness and love, not war, condemnation or hate. You are not far from the Kingdom in this thought.

      However, you then go right back to making a case for war: “…there are occasions when war is justified by Scriptures…” and as such you tacitly affirm the exact same principle that some Muslims operate under when they go on jihad. You have your Holy Scriptures; they have theirs. To quote you again, “short term cost will bring a long term benefit.” In the eyes of some Muslim’s, war against non-Muslims is justified. Think of all the hell-fodder they will prevent by not letting us vile Christians spread our false religion!

      As for WW2 and Hitler, clearly it would have been better had he been aborted or never been conceived in the first place. If there were only one possible future for Hitler, it makes me wonder why God “caused” him to enter the world stage, but that’s another issue. As it stands, there is little doubt that God was able to allow secular powers to stop the Axis Powers, but this does not mean that any of them were doing God’s will. In another thread you mentioned Assyria’s and Babylon’s destruction of Israel and Judah in the OT. God allowed their violence to chastise Israel, but I think it is a stretch to say that either nation-state was “following YHWH.” We can follow Pharaoh, Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Columbus, Lenin, Hitler, Pol-Pot or any USA President to war, but not Jesus.

      -CL

  8. Justin says:

    You said: “[…] you accuse Muslims of being charged with ‘killing unbelievers,’ but given your rigid interpretation of the Old Testament in Christian Scriptures, how can you say this with a straight face?”

    How can I say this with a straight face? In a couple of words….super easily. Am I to understand that you really believe that the Quran does not actually command the killing and mistreating of infidels (non-Muslms)? Like I said, more than 100 times it says this. So this part is abundantly clear. History shows this, too.

    You said: “Israel was clearly under the impression that they were to violently take the “Holy Land” and kill everyone there who wasn’t a Jew and wouldn’t convert.

    So, am I to understand that you don’t believe God directed them to take the Holy Land (thus fulfilling prophecy) and be a judgement on an evil people that had rejected God?

    Exodus 23.23-33

    Is it ‘rigid‘ to believe God for His Word? There is no doubt as to the fact that God is driving the agenda, not the Israelites who were under some sort of ‘impression‘. Based on this Scripture, don’t you agree?

    You said: “Furthermore, it seems that you are hesitant to call out Christian violence and war for what it is (past and present), and that you have now adapted Romans 13 to justify war as well. I don’t want to rub you the wrong way here, but it seems that you are being inconsistent (at best) and only following the Old Testament (OT) and Romans 13 when they suit your purposes (at worst). What am I not seeing that you are here?

    You are correct that violence has been done in the name of Christ, but not in the leading of Christ. However, if I am to believe all of Scripture then the precedent has been very clearly set that the Sovereign God chose in the past to use the Jews as agents of discipline on sinful people (all the while fulfilling prophecy that ultimately brought us Jesus!) to stop their evil. Evil is still very present in our fallen world. If a government has been instituted as an “avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer”, then it follows that when that evil is on an international scale, then another nation could be used to stop that evil. Hitler in WWII seems to fit this, doesn’t he? Would you say that it was justifiable, Biblically, to go to war to stop his massacring?

    • C_Lambeth says:

      Justin,
      I don’t think you understood my point, which remains that as you feel “super easy” about genocide because of your religious book, so too do Muslims. And no, you are not “to understand” that I am ignorant of what the Qur’an teaches. I never disputed that Islam teaches that it’s just fine to put infidels to the sword. Nevertheless, your own response to the Bible (OT and Romans 13 in particular) indicates that you think exactly the same way as they do. You just happen to quibble with Muslims about who is a follower of God and who isn’t. Can you now see the problem with your faith-based advocacy of war?

      As for your question about Israel’s taking of the Holy Land, it seems as though you have misread what I wrote. I stated that the Israelites believed they were to take it by force, would you have me believe that they didn’t think this way?

      It is it ‘rigid’ to take God at his word?” My answer is a qualified “no,” so long as we seek to understand what it meant to its original audiences/ what God wanted to communicate through that word. But as I have repeated more than once elsewhere, faulty human interpretation is afoot. Interpretive efforts need not always be literal, metaphorical, historical, prose or poetry (or some other category). It is my experience with fundamentalist Christians that they want to take everything rigidly literally (except when it costs them something or asks them to change). So if you don’t always mean “literally” when you say “rigid,” then my answer remains in the negative.

      Once again you are close to the Kingdom here: “[violence has not been done] in the leading of Christ.” And I don’t think it a stretch to say that evil never can be done in the leading of Christ either. You are with me on this, but then you immediately fall away again and suggest that war can be justifiable on biblical grounds. I simply don’t understand how you can speak from both sides of your mouth like this and not be aware of it. Do you not see the contradiction in your thinking here?

      There is a lot of stuff in the Bible, Justin, some of which even sings about dashing one’s enemy’s babies against rocks. By your own logic dashing babies against rocks is “biblical.” But what I ask you to consider is whether or not God is a dynamic character/ Trinity who progressively moves with humanity to bring it to ever increasing, expanding and deepening understandings of what it means to live and die as his people in his Kingdom-in-their-midst. If he is that dynamic God, then he will not say and do and make use of the same kinds of tactics at the end (or middle) of the human story as he did at its beginning. This is not to say that his character will change (it won’t) but certainly that the way he goes about accomplishing his purposes does change (despite humanity’s resistance to that will). Even if God did make use of genocide and war in the past, it does not follow that we should perpetuate the human war machine “in his name,” into the present or future. Surely you are aware that almost every army and military leader believes that God is on their side. What makes you so sure that he is on yours when it comes to killing your enemies? No, ALL of the Old Testament and ALL of the New Testament must be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, not the other way around, and Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself. That trumps everything else, no exceptions.

      Thank you for your engagement,
      -CL

  9. Justin says:

    Corbin,
    You said: “I don’t think you understood my point, which remains that as you feel “super easy” about genocide because of your religious book, so too do Muslims. And no, you are not “to understand” that I am ignorant of what the Qur’an teaches. I never disputed that Islam teaches that it’s just fine to put infidels to the sword. Nevertheless, your own response to the Bible (OT and Romans 13 in particular) indicates that you think exactly the same way as they do. You just happen to quibble with Muslims about who is a follower of God and who isn’t. Can you now see the problem with your faith-based advocacy of war?”

    What?…’your religious book‘? Is it your religious book, too? Your wording sounds very much like you’ve just diminished it or rejected it. Can you explain this?

    Thankfully, you are aware of what the Quran teaches. This is good to understand because this book has pitted its poor followers against other peoples most of its history. Your claim that I am thinking just like them is kind of funny. But then you downplay the critical distinction of who is actually following God. Let’s highlight this because this is a central issue.

    You said: “As for your question about Israel’s taking of the Holy Land, it seems as though you have misread what I wrote. I stated that the Israelites believed they were to take it by force, would you have me believe that they didn’t think this way?

    Well, as I review Scripture, they were directed to take it by force by God and at times even He fought for them thereby making it really His operation and not theirs, right? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but your statement makes me think that you think the taking of the Holy Land by force was a human-based idea rather than a God-based idea.

    You said: “But as I have repeated more than once elsewhere, faulty human interpretation is afoot. Interpretive efforts need not always be literal, metaphorical, historical, prose or poetry (or some other category). It is my experience with fundamentalist Christians that they want to take everything rigidly literally (except when it costs them something or asks them to change).”

    In order not to mistakenly add to or take away from the Word, perhaps we should always start with littoral interpretation unless it’s internally obvious it’s not meant to be taken that way. My experience with liberally-minded Christians is that they interpret the Scripture in such a way as to minimize it’s authority and minimize obedience at the same time. Better to err toward greater obedience out of love always.

    You said: “By your own logic dashing babies against rocks is ‘biblical.’

    What verse are you referring to? I will say that if God commanded it and if we believe Genesis 1:1 to be true, then what right would we ever have to disobey His command? If you were a witness to adultery in the OT times and the law clearly states that the witnesses were supposed to stone the guilty party, would you obey or disobey?

    You said: “But what I ask you to consider is whether or not God is a dynamic character/ Trinity who progressively moves with humanity to bring it to ever increasing, expanding and deepening understandings of what it means to live and die as his people in his Kingdom-in-their-midst.”

    What verses are you referring to here?

    You said: “Even if God did make use of genocide and war in the past, it does not follow that we should perpetuate the human war machine ‘in his name,’ into the present or future.”

    Yes, He did choose to use genocide and war both for His people and against them as discipline. What verses are you relying on to claim that a war (to stop a great evil, for example) could not be in His name? How do you know that He might not use that same tactic at some point? Mind you, I’m not saying that this would be an easy or flippant decision. Neither am I saying that every effort by our country fits this necessarily….just so you don’t think I’m saying any old fight is for Him. 🙂
    Am I right in saying that you don’t believe stopping the Nazis was a worthy, God-honoring cause? Correct me if you did claim that stopping a genocide was a justifiable war effort.

    You said: “What makes you so sure that he is on yours when it comes to killing your enemies? No, ALL of the Old Testament and ALL of the New Testament must be interpreted through the lens of Jesus, not the other way around, and Jesus tells us that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love your neighbor as yourself.

    Like I have mentioned, it would take lots of prayer and discernment together with exhaustion of other efforts to stop an evil. Lots of consultation with the Word, too. You’re right that ALL must be interpreted through Jesus who is One with the Father….also noting that the state has been given rights to punish the wicked/evil in the land as per our other discussion. Yes, yes, interpersonally, we are to love God and our neighbors as ourselves AND we are to submit to the local laws that don’t cause us to disobey God because authorities are “the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” Just to be clear. 🙂

    Blessings,
    Justin

    • C_Lambeth says:

      Justin, I fully accept the Bible in all that it intended to communicate, but is it not “your religious book”? Maybe I haven’t understood you at all, but if you’ve perceived that my “wording” has diminished it, then that is your misperception. I am glad that you asked rather than just assume, so thank you for the question.

      I maintain that you are indeed thinking just like the Muslim who wants to put their enemies to the sword. You are still simply quibbling on who your respective enemies are. You use your beliefs to justify violence, and they use theirs. Please explain how this is different in a way that doesn’t appeal to special privileges and exceptions for your religion (because once again, they would do the exact same thing).

      As for the Israelites and the ancient Holy Land, we agree that they were of the persuasion that they were to take it by force.

      As for your assertion that we should “always start with a littoral [sic] interpretation…” I have to ask: “Says who?” Can you point to a place in Scripture that teaches that or is it just your approach to the text? Surely you must also consider that forcing a biblical text to be literal when its original authors or speakers did not intend it, is also to either “add or take away from the Word.” Your argument cuts both ways. However, I do like your referencing the idea of “internal” consistency. Even then, I suspect you grant exceptions for your fundamentalist theology. We’ll have to save that for another time though.

      If your definition of a “liberally minded Christian” is one who “interpret[s] the Scripture in such a way as to minimize it’s authority and minimize obedience at the same time,” then you should be happy to discover that I am not a “liberally-minded Christian.”

      Babies and Rocks: Psalm 137.9 “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.”

      This is technically “biblical.” I am not really sure what your point is by referencing Genesis 1:1 in relation to this, but I can respond to your question about our “right” to disobey God’s command. We have that right because he has given it to us. Everyone is treated equally under the law, and unlike some people would choose, he does not force anyone to obey his will on the matter. Of course this doesn’t mean our disobedience is good or healthy, but it is our right as creatures with God-given free-will.

      As for your reference to adultery and your attempted qualification of “Old Testament times,” once again I don’t know how you can say this with a straight face or be so unaware of your own inconsistencies. By your own interpretive efforts elsewhere (particularly concerning Jesus’ words in Matthew 5.17) you have affirmed that nothing has changed between the Old Testament and the New.

      Does Jesus’ actions in John 8 create any cognitive dissonance for you on this issue? Would you have me believe that Jesus was being “disobedient” or rather that something significant indeed has changed in how God relates to sinners between the OT and the New? Is this a false dichotomy? Is there a third way you would propose?

      You asked me what verses I was referring to when I asked you to “consider whether or not God is a dynamic character/ Trinity who progressively moves with humanity to bring it to ever increasing, expanding and deepening understandings of what it means to live and die as his people in his Kingdom-in-their-midst.” I do not deny that I am having a hard time even understanding how you could doubt this, so I think a better question is: “What stories in the Bible do not point to this?” Maybe you should start with the paragraph above this one, but I think the Garden of Eden is also a good place to start. How God dealt with the first murderer (versus later murderers) and his progressive thoughts around “The Flood” are equally appropriate. I could go on about OT examples, and that’s even before Jesus stepped on stage. Once he arrived, Christ clearly shook the tree of first century Jewish “conservative” thought as it was recorded/ interpreted by Moses (and the other prophets) and transmitted & interpreted by their faithful devotees. Even if you buy into a rigid content download type model of biblical “inspiration” there can be little doubt that God is not doing and saying the same things at the end of the Bible as he did & said at the beginning.

      What verses am I referring to that claim war cannot be done in Jesus name? A perfect question, but I also ask that you point me to the verses that say we can select violence in Jesus’ name. The specific verses that formed this conclusion in particular are Matt. 5:44, Luke 6:27, 35 and Matt. 22.37-40. These are direct from Jesus himself.

      Even beyond these passages, I also never see Jesus opt for violence. Quite to the contrary, we witness his surrendering himself to the evil of capital punishment despite his undisputed ability to rally the most sophisticated and overwhelming “military” force the universe has ever (not) known. Jesus chose the way of the cross, not the way of majesty, and he asks his people to follow him. Are we not to take THAT literally?

      I understand that your particular line of questioning on this issue is about stopping those you perceive to be evil doers (Nazis to be specific). This is a difficult issue, so I cannot pretend it is without complexities, and I do appreciate your desire to prevent certain kinds of evil from spreading. The problem with WWII however, is that saving the Jews (and Gypsies, homosexuals and political dissidents) from systematic execution is not why the U.S. entered the war at all. Neither were concentration camps our primary objectives even after we started winning the fight. This is well documented. It was only after we (and our militaristic/ economic/ political vitality) felt threatened that we decided to jump into the fray, and when we think about it, that sounds remarkably similar to the ways that Israel’s King Solomon went wrong and ignored the prophecies that God gave to him. Yes, Hitler and his peons were stopped (and that was good), but it was done out of self-interest, not some sappy, bleeding-heart “liberal” agenda to rally behind widows and orphans the least or the lost. Stopping a genocide is not why the USA went to war in WW2. But even if that were the actual reason our nation entered that fight, what I hear you saying is that the ends justify the means. I disagree, not just in principle, but also because humans are great at rationalizing their behavior and as I’ve said before, everyone thinks that God is on their side. To help make my point, I feel compelled to answer your question with another question: Would it not have been preferable to a war with Germany (and Japan) if Hitler and all his sympathizers had just been aborted by their mothers? Think of all the Allies’ service people who would have been saved, not to mention the untold millions of non-combatants. Surely abortion would be a better option than your Holy War, would it not?

      If, as you have already agreed with me, everything must be interpreted through Jesus, and we see Jesus opting ONLY for the way of peace and telling us that the greatest commandments are that we love God and our neighbors, then how can you believe that any amount of “prayer and discernment” or “consultation with the Word” would overturn his entire life and teachings? Is it in bombs and bullets that you trust, or is it in Jesus? Is there any violence that you cannot force Romans 13 to accommodate? Should not Paul’s writings be interpreted through what Christ said? Is Paul at odds with Jesus or more authoritative than him? Are the OT prophets more authoritative than Jesus? Is Moses?

      Thanks in advance,
      -CL

Leave a reply. Respondents who do not honor the spirit of legitimate and reasonably courteous dialogue may find their posts unapproved, edited or removed at any time. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s