Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 48

Thread: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    49,895

    Default ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    [IMc - Actually they are smirking liars who know full well that they are racists. They just want to flaunt their bigotry. And I view the city's approval as craven enabling of bigotry.]

    After permit approved for whites-only church, small Minnesota town insists it isn't racist
    City leaders said if they had turned down Asatru Folk Assembly, they would have faced an expensive legal battle.

    Dec. 22, 2020, 5:58 AM EST

    By Deon J. Hampton

    When the church doors open, only white people will be allowed inside.

    That’s the message the Asatru Folk Assembly in Murdock, Minnesota, is sending after being granted a conditional use permit to open a church there and practice its pre-Christian religion that originated in northern Europe.

    Despite a council vote officially approving the permit this month, residents are pushing back against the decision.

    Opponents have collected about 50,000 signatures on an online petition to stop the all-white church from making its home in the farming town of 280 people.

    “I think they thought they could fly under the radar in a small town like this, but we’d like to keep the pressure on them,” said Peter Kennedy, a longtime Murdock resident. “Racism is not welcome here."

    Many locals said they support the growing population of Latinos, who have moved to the area in the past decade because of job opportunities, over the church.

    “Just because the council gave them a conditional permit does not mean that the town and people in the area surrounding will not be vigilant in watching and protecting our area,” Jean Lesteberg, who lives in the neighboring town of De Graff, wrote on the city’s Facebook page.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Asatru Folk Assembly as a “neo-Volkisch hate group” that couches “their bigotry in baseless claims of bloodlines grounding the superiority of one’s white identity.”

    Many residents call them a white supremacist or white separatist group, but church members deny it.

    “We’re not. It’s just simply not true," said Allen Turnage, a folk assembly board member. "Just because we respect our own culture, that doesn’t mean we are denigrating someone else’s."

    The group, based in Brownsville, California, says teachings and membership are for those of strictly European bloodlines.

    The church was looking for a new church in the eastern North Dakota region when they came across Murdock. It’s unknown how many members they have worldwide or how many people will attend the new church.

    “We do not need salvation. All we need is freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor,” the group wrote on its website about their beliefs. “We honor the Gods under the names given to them by our Germanic/Norse ancestors.”

    Their forefathers, according to the website, were "Angels and Saxons, Lombards and Heruli, Goths and Vikings, and, as sons and daughters of these people, they are united by ties of blood and culture undimmed by centuries."

    “We respect the ways our ancestors viewed the world and approached the universe a thousand years ago,” Turnage said.

    A small contingent of church supporters in Murdock said the community should be open-minded and respectful to all.

    “I find it hypocritical, for lack of a better term, of my community to show much hate towards something they don’t understand. I for one don’t see a problem with it,” Jesse James, who said he has lived in Murdock for 26 years, wrote on Facebook.

    “I do not wish to follow in this pagan religion, however, I feel it’s important to recognize and support each other’s beliefs,” he said.

    Murdock council members said they do not support the church but were legally obligated to approve the permit, which they did in a 3-1 decision.

    “We were highly advised by our attorney to pass this permit for legal reasons to protect the First Amendment rights," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said. "We knew that if this was going to be denied, we were going to have a legal battle on our hands that could be pretty expensive.”

    City Attorney Don Wilcox said it came down to free speech and freedom of religion.

    “I think there’s a great deal of sentiment in the town that they don’t want that group there," he said. "You can’t just bar people from practicing whatever religion they want or saying anything they want as long as it doesn’t incite violence.”

    Stephanie Hoff, whose council term ends this month, cast the only dissenting vote.

    “I know that we have the legality standpoint, and I personally felt we had a chance to fight it. I think we could have fought it had we went to court,” she said, basing her argument on proving municipal harm. “I felt that we had a case with the emotional and mental well being of the city of Murdock.”

    The farming town about a 115-mile drive west of Minneapolis is known for producing corn and soybeans, which are shipped across the country. Latinos make up about 20 percent of Murdock's small population. Many are day laborers from Mexico and Central America, city officials said.

    "We’re a welcoming community,” Kennedy said, rejecting the Asatru Folk Assembly's exclusionary beliefs. “That’s not at all what the people of Murdock feel. Nobody had a problem with the Hispanics here.”

    The AFA purchased its building this year on property in a residential zone. Constructed as a Lutheran church before the zoning was changed, it was later converted to a private residence. The folk assembly needed the permit to convert the residence back to a church.

    The vote has drawn national attention and condemnation.

    “It’s ironic the city council didn’t want to commit discrimination against the church, but the church is discriminating against Blacks," said Abigail Suiter, 33, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. "It’s very telling of where the priority is and whose lives matter.”

    Prominent lawyers disagree on the council's options heading into the vote. Some of the debate centered on the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which protects religious institutions and churches from unduly burdens and discriminatory land-use regulations.

    The law prevents municipalities from discriminating against the placement of churches in residential neighborhoods, said attorney Brian Egan, a municipal law expert on Long Island, New York.

    “It’s a tightrope for municipalities to walk,” Egan said. “One man’s religion of hate is another man’s religion of love.”

    Other lawyers said the property's zoning was enough to reject the permit.

    “They could have said the whole area has become residential, we don’t want churches in a residential area because it’s incompatible with our comprehensive plan," said David Schultz, a constitutional law professor at the University of Minnesota, " ... because at that point they’re not making a decision based upon the viewpoint or content of speech."

    Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard University, said the council might have been able to prevent the private sale of the property, had it known about it, through laws focused on forbidding racial discrimination in property transactions.

    “No institution that proposes to exclude people on account of race is allowed to run an operation in the state of Minnesota,” Tribe said.

    Kavanagh said he stands by the council vote "for legal reasons only."

    “The biggest thing people don’t understand is, because we’ve approved this permit, all of a sudden everyone feels this town is racist, and that isn’t the case,” he said. “Just because we voted yes doesn’t mean we’re racist.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...7QQxBROYB1SJX0

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    38,100

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Think of the money that would have poured in from evangelicals & other RW groups if they had voted no. Probably would've bankrupted the town. Seems to me the residents now need to make these bigots fee entirely unwelcome in completely non-violent ways: quiet protests outside the church, shunning of the members, etc.
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    52,347

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Garret View Post
    Think of the money that would have poured in from evangelicals & other RW groups if they had voted no. Probably would've bankrupted the town. Seems to me the residents now need to make these bigots fee entirely unwelcome in completely non-violent ways: quiet protests outside the church, shunning of the members, etc.
    True dat. Freedom of speech bites both ways.
    Start with billboards about the parable of the good Samaritan and work upwards from there, with another about Jesus/Yeshua being an Eastern Mediterranean Semite.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    58,118

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I had to look up Murdock. Population 278, completely rural farm country about 120 miles west of Minneapolis, about 3/4 of the way to the South Dakota border. As far as I can tell the folks who want to open the church aren't locals.

    I don't think evangelical Christians would support these people at all; they're neo-pagans.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN Mississippi River Milepost 840.2
    Posts
    13,062

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Ian, where exactly do you see proof of smirking racism and craven enablement?

    When towns consider permits for neo-Nazis or the KKK to hold a protest, does their approval indicate consent?

    This is a tiny town of 280 people. They were advised by attorneys who surely have never encountered or advised on a first amendment case. Maybe they are from the big town of Willmar (population 19,600) 20 miles away. Or they could have consulted with Lawrence Tribe who says they “might” have been able to prevent the private sale of the property “had it known about it”.

    I see an embarrassed small town without resources or tools to manage a first amendment versus fourteenth amendment challenge, not craven or smirking racists.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ross View Post
    I see an embarrassed small town without resources or tools to manage a first amendment versus fourteenth amendment challenge, not craven or smirking racists.
    fair enough
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    58,118

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ross View Post
    I see an embarrassed small town without resources or tools to manage a first amendment versus fourteenth amendment challenge, not craven or smirking racists.
    Exactly. I'd bet quite a lot that almost everybody in Mudock and nearby would breathe an enormous sigh of relief if the 'Asatru Folk Assembly' went far, far away.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hills of Vermont, USA
    Posts
    38,100

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    fair enough
    Prezactly.

    Having lived in small towns for most of my life & been in town gov't in several, I know just how difficult it is & how tight money is. As I mentioned above, I hope the locals can make use they know they are not welcome.
    "If it ain't broke, you're not trying." - Red Green

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    Exactly. I'd bet quite a lot that almost everybody in Mudock and nearby would breathe an enormous sigh of relief if the 'Asatru Folk Assembly' went far, far away.

    i don't think you can say that either, not after the events of this summer in minnesota,
    your state has lost its post racial halo
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 1999
    Location
    Hyannis, MA, USA
    Posts
    49,895

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I think the town was in a real bind. I view the Asatru Folk Assembly as the smirking racists using "religious" lies as a strategy to make their racism respectable.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Saint Helena Island, SC
    Posts
    11,048

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Asatru didn’t start off as a racist belief system.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...racism/543864/
    Fight Entropy, build a wooden boat!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    58,118

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I've never been to Murdock, (not that I remember, anyway, I may have driven through for thirty seconds or so on Highway 12), so I can't say anything specific about the place. I think my guess is pretty accurate, though. I have no illusions about the racial attitudes of some folks, although actual white supremacists are a pretty small minority. But Murdock has one Catholic church, and there's one ELCA church down the road in Kerkhoven, and as far as I can tell, the 'Asatru Folk Assembly' people aren't locals. Rural Minnesota has its share of faults, but widespread support for neo-pagan white separatists is not one of them.

    And the events of this summer have mostly to with the unpleasant history of the police in Minneapolis; only the most tenuous connection. Minnesota is no more 'post-racial' than anywhere in the US; never has been.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    1,484,065 Minnesotans voted for Trump in November.

    Now of course all of those voters are not white supremacists nor racists, but the clear fact that Trump and his administration are both racist (implicity and explicitly) as well as white supremacists didn't bother virtually half of all voters in Minnesota. What's that make those voters, which just by happenstance, were all white?
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    58,118

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    What does that have to do with the Asatru Folk Assembly? White separatist neo-pagans are about as common in rural Minnesota as kangaroos.

    Here's their website, BTW. It's . . . interesting.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    7,767

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Even if it's the case that none of the Asatru-ites have any ill will or animosity for non-European-non-Nordic non-whites, it is still racist. By definition. It is still unconstitutional and un-American. And no one who would be excluded if it is allowed to stand will ever want to have anything to do with the religion or it's adherents, anyway. They're already separate for ever. I.e, it's prolly fine with the local Latinx and whomever else that they won't be allowed in that church's activities. My first thought when I read the article is that I'd send some money in support of the town if it would help and if I had any.

    Is this a case where the newcomers are only there, where the population is that low, to outnumber the locals and thereby get their particular values voted into local law? There was a little remote California town that went through something like that in the seventies or eighties, IIRC, but I can't recall the name of the town. East side of the southern Sierra, maybe?
    Speak softly and carry a mouthful of marbles.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Wilson View Post
    What does that have to do with the Asatru Folk Assembly?
    simply responding to your suggestion there are few or no racists or white supremacists in mudock. . .
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    St. Paul, MN, USA
    Posts
    58,118

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    simply responding to your suggestion there are few or no racists or white supremacists in Murdock. . .
    But I didn't say that, not even close.
    "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
    for nature cannot be fooled."

    Richard Feynman

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Farmington, Oregon
    Posts
    15,808

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Mahan View Post
    Even if it's the case that none of the Asatru-ites have any ill will or animosity for non-European-non-Nordic non-whites, it is still racist. By definition. It is still unconstitutional and un-American. And no one who would be excluded if it is allowed to stand will ever want to have anything to do with the religion or it's adherents, anyway. They're already separate for ever. I.e, it's prolly fine with the local Latinx and whomever else that they won't be allowed in that church's activities. My first thought when I read the article is that I'd send some money in support of the town if it would help and if I had any.

    Is this a case where the newcomers are only there, where the population is that low, to outnumber the locals and thereby get their particular values voted into local law? There was a little remote California town that went through something like that in the seventies or eighties, IIRC, but I can't recall the name of the town. East side of the southern Sierra, maybe?
    antelope, oregon

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    my apologies keith, i certainly didn't intend to misrepresent what you posted
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    38,084

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    There is a great deal more racism and bigotry in this country than most would like to admit.
    Now he's gone. If only he'd be forgotten.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    West Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    7,767

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by L.W. Baxter View Post
    antelope, oregon
    Yeah, the Rajneesh cult bought land around the town, population around fifty at the time. Rancho Rajneesh named for the Indian cult leader in the eighies. That's maybe why I thought it was south of me, I was living in Grants Pass then.

    Seems like there was also a novel about a sex experiment cult that also tried the strategy, Maybe I'm conflating the forty year old memories.
    Speak softly and carry a mouthful of marbles.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    71,251

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Mahan View Post
    Yeah, the Rajneesh cult bought land around the town, population around fifty at the time. Rancho Rajneesh named for the Indian cult leader in the eighies. That's maybe why I thought it was south of me, I was living in Grants Pass then.

    Seems like there was also a novel about a sex experiment cult that also tried the strategy, Maybe I'm conflating the forty year old memories.
    Yes, the Bhagwan. It WAS quite a phenomenon. And illustrative of how an outside group, with larger potential financial support, can really disrupt an isolated small town.

    I'm still a bit puzzled by your internal compass, though. Antelope would still have be North of you. It's probably 5-6 hours NNE of GrassPants.

    But I agree... the group is racist. I have nothing against pagans. My darling minister wife says I'm sure not a Christian, and what my spiritual practices most resemble is a Druid. But their racialized interpretation is both twisted and perverse.
    Last edited by David G; 12-26-2020 at 11:50 AM.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    https://www.facebook.com/HarborWoodworks/

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    33,367

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by C. Ross View Post
    When towns consider permits for neo-Nazis or the KKK to hold a protest, does their approval indicate consent?
    I thought about that, but there is a difference. A Klan march is free speech. Excluding someone on the basis of color is the equivalent of not allowing them into the country club. That decision was made a long time ago and you can't do it.

    However, it does create an amusing image of men standing by the door with a color chart, deciding who is white enough. Sometimes, regressively stupid just reveals itself if you allow it the opportunity.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Valley of the Sun
    Posts
    107,663

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    actually you can still exclude somebody from your country club based solely on race
    Simpler is better, except when complicated looks really cool.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    33,367

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Pless View Post
    actually you can still exclude somebody from your country club based solely on race
    Seriously? I thought that was decided decades ago. What about religion? There used to be country clubs that Jews could not join. Is that still the case?

  26. #26
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Paul, MN Mississippi River Milepost 840.2
    Posts
    13,062

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian McColgin View Post
    I think the town was in a real bind. I view the Asatru Folk Assembly as the smirking racists using "religious" lies as a strategy to make their racism respectable.
    Ah. Thank you. I failed to understand your meaning earlier.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    64,776

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I cannot but remark on the appropriateness of the town's name, given the similarly named press baron's support for such organisation's elsewhere. And Jim's point (#15) about taking over the town is very real.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Southampton Ont. Canada
    Posts
    6,947

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    The website says that they welcome "Ethnic Europeans",plenty of whom would be "well tanned" at the very least.

    I have to wonder if the members have had any genetic testing done,since most of the tribes mentioned were fairly expansive in their trading,raiding,and likely......ahem, generous with their DNA.
    R
    Sleep with one eye open.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    8,773

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Maybe the town could turn to people like the ACLU or the Southern Poverty Law center to help them get out of this tough spot?
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Uki, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    32,938

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I think the members should be gene typed to ensure their racial claim.
    ​In a world full of wonders, man invented boredom.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bradford, VT
    Posts
    9,652

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Mr. Williamson has the right idea. Run their DNA, just to make sure they are really what they say they are, and are not just some tax dodge, and disallow any who are impure. Black blood, pshaw that's nothing compared to neanderthal, they aren't even human!

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Do you have a warrant?
    Posts
    9,308

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Their forefathers, according to the website, were "Angels and Saxons, Lombards and Heruli, Goths and Vikings, and, as sons and daughters of these people, they are united by ties of blood and culture undimmed by centuries."
    I hope Thor comes down and smites them with his hammer.
    When you can take the pebble from my hand, it will be time for you to leave.

  33. #33
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    The Garden State
    Posts
    8,773

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    I have a cousin who is big into the Nordic symbols.. and yes, he's a right wing racist bigot too.
    "If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping with a mosquito"

    -Dalai Lama

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Now
    Posts
    3,287

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Haberland View Post
    I have a cousin who is big into the Nordic symbols.. and yes, he's a right wing racist bigot too.
    Ummm...over here, the Pagans, neo-Pagans, new-neo-Pagans, Nordic God Believers, Believers of Nordic Gods and Gods:Nordic:Belief Inners, Witches, Covens, Wotanii, etc., aren't all necessarily rascists. More (I think) a leaning towards the 'inappropriateness' of M.E. religions to a chillier, more seasonal-influenced latitude, where the turn of the year is more marked on the land.

    Yet there it does seem to be a bit gun-ho (!) and racist.

    Andy
    "In case of fire ring Fellside 75..."

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    52,347

    Default Re: ? Whites Only "Church" Not Racist ?

    Quote Originally Posted by AndyG View Post
    Ummm...over here, the Pagans, neo-Pagans, new-neo-Pagans, Nordic God Believers, Believers of Nordic Gods and Gods:Nordic:Belief Inners, Witches, Covens, Wotanii, etc., aren't all necessarily rascists. More (I think) a leaning towards the 'inappropriateness' of M.E. religions to a chillier, more seasonal-influenced latitude, where the turn of the year is more marked on the land.

    Yet there it does seem to be a bit gun-ho (!) and racist.

    Andy
    Whilst most "Christians" have just celebrated the lengthening of the days that followed the winter solstice.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •