Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Why should we care what religious beliefs others hold?

Asked by ETpro (34589points) July 28th, 2013

Clearly, we do care. Questions on Fluther about the existence, nature and desires of God (or gods for our pantheistic members) generally produce a blizzard of answers and not infrequently a firestorm of heated disagreements. Should we care what others believe? Should we care when they act on those beliefs and their actions threaten the peace, tranquility and order of our lives?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

57 Answers

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t…unless it’s a belief system that encourages abuses toward women…or anyone for that matter.

El_Cadejo's avatar

I can give two shits what you believe in. It’s when your beliefs start influencing my life that I start caring.

jerv's avatar

Because sometimes the beliefs of others are a threat. I’m not talking about merely a threat to our own belief systems, but a threat to our freedoms, and possibly physical safety. And while Flutherites of certain beliefs may be fine, they share viewpoints with those that beat homosexuals to death, assassinate doctors, enslave women, and commit other atrocities that even the merest hint of association with such people makes you suspect and potentially dangerous.

@uberbatman Many of them vote and thus can influence your life through legislation. Look at Texas.

El_Cadejo's avatar

@jerv That is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about…

glacial's avatar

What @jerv said.

On a more personal level, I almost never have conversations about faith with people I know in real life. It’s usually not relevant. Occasionally I will discover that a new friend is religious, and I have noticed that I have trouble concealing my disappointment. But otherwise, it’s not an issue. Maybe this is simply because most of my friends are atheists these days.

I will engage in discussions about faith on Fluther, because this is a place to discuss and debate ideas. It’s just a different kind of community. I rarely talk about naked pancake parties or mansions in real life, either.

Aethelwine's avatar

I don’t. I’ve never judged a person based on their religious belief. I judge them by their actions and character after I’ve had a chance to get to know them. I’ve known unkind atheists, Mormons, Catholics, Methodists and Muslims. I’ve also known kind and caring atheists, Mormons, Catholics, Methodists and Muslims. A person is not their religion, it’s just one part of who they are.

this is just my opinion

Coloma's avatar

I’m in @uberbatman ‘s camp. I am very much a ” live & let live” personality, as long as your living isn’t being crammed down my throat. Admittedly, being a bright, rational thinking type, I DO, at times think to myself ” WTF! HOW can some people be SO deluded?” Oh well…those moments pass quickly and I am humble enough and self aware enough to know these thoughts are just manifestations of my own ego.

I will say, however, that any religious beliefs that endanger the lives of children via their parents lunacy, like refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer, should be met with criminal charges. Nuff said.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t as long as they aren’t trying to make laws that will make everyone follow in the rules of that belief system. I have family members and friends who are very religious and believe things I don’t believe at all. It is never a conflict for us, because we don’t try to tell the other what they should believe. We all feel religious beliefs a a personal thing. Some people believe religious beliefs are to be shared and promoted.

I am curious about other beliefs, I find it very interesting. So I care in the sense that I am interested, but I don’t care to change their minds.

flip86's avatar

The reason I care is because there is a large part of American society who thinks their religion should force itself upon me and everyone else. If it were up to them, we would all be living in a theocratic hell.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’ve never really experienced anyone trying to force their religion on me, with the exception of the infamous Jehovah’s Witnesses, of course. Well, and some baptists came to my door once.

marinelife's avatar

We should not, as long as thye don’t use their religious beliefs as a reason for killing someone else.

jerv's avatar

@Dutchess_III If you live in a Red state then you probably have, just not in an “in your face” manner. Well, unless you share their beliefs and hate women, homosexuals, non-Christians, non-whites, and Democrats.

ragingloli's avatar

Your beliefs directly dictate your actions, actions which will in the end affect other people, often negatively. Why should we care about other beliefs? Because those beliefs make them fly into skyscrapers and bomb abortion clinics. They make them infringe upon others rights, see abortion and gay rights.
That is why we should care.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I live smack in the Bible belt. Kansas, @jerv. Tiller, Westboro. I’ve seen church signs, but they’ve all been benign and sometimes silly, but never ones that were derogatory toward any one group. I never felt anyone was trying to force anything on me. I did when I was active in the church, but not since then. The only place I see those stupid hate-based attitudes is on the internet and that is going to affect me only if I CHOSE to interact with them. And what is with this recent spate of insults Jerv? Stop please!

Jeruba's avatar

Some people’s belief systems require proselytizing: “Go ye into all the world…”

Some preach intolerance for nonbelievers.

Some have programs that specify universal acceptance as a goal.

How many belief systems preach “live and let live”? Any one that seeks converts does not.

I don’t have a problem if you believe A and I believe B. But it is a matter of concern to me if you believe A and belief A says that everybody must believe A, especially if the only options are conversion or persecution up to and including death.

It’s also a matter of concern if your practice of A interferes with my everyday life or in some other way infringes on my rights or causes you to take advantage of me; for instance, if you think you have some special right to dictate what my children can learn in school, or if you think my earnings should go to support your causes.

And it’s my business if all the A believers and all the B believers think I ought to be penalized or demonized in some way if I choose “none of the above.”

But these things are mostly about religious practices, which sometimes stem logically from beliefs and sometimes seem to have attached themselves to a religion without being rooted in it. A person’s quiet inner life and relation to some concept of a divine entity is no concern of mine. It’s when what they call “faith” causes them to mess with me—or threaten to mess with me and a whole lot of others over whom they have no right of authority—that I object.

Neodarwinian's avatar

Because their beliefs fuel their actions in this world.

That simple and that unacceptable.

LornaLove's avatar

Yes, because that is what is partly wrong with our world today. A lack of respect and tolerance.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I could care less what anyone’s religious belief’s are, as long as they don’t try to push their beliefs or practices on me.

I might think they are ridiculous. But it is every person’s right to be ridiculous. (Just look at our politicians!)

johnpowell's avatar

@Dutchess_III… I live in a super liberal place that hates religion. The (thumpers) are really aggressive. Maybe since they don’t actually need to be aggressive where you live is why you don’t see them as being as aggressive as I do.

They feed the homeless here. But you have to listen to a 30 minute talk about Jesus to get a sandwich and a tiny bag of Doritos. Jesus would have at least given out some wine during the indoctrination.

Berserker's avatar

@johnpowell Yup, I once attended what you call a food bank. You get confirmation from welfare that you’re allowed to go there and pick up food. So you go there, eat a free meal of koolaid and stale muffins, then get in line, grab food and leave.
Certainly, I appreciated that I was given free food. But you’re right, during the meal you sit there while some guy gives you a lecture on how to be a human being.
In this particular case, the guy told us about the monarch butterfly, and explains to us how a caterpillar makes a cocoon and comes out as a butterfly. This analogy served to basically tell us that we were caterpillars who have not evolved into butterflies yet because we haven’t found God.

Thing is, as a kid I loved insects, and even if you don’t know a thing about bugs, I think most people know how caterpillars turn into butterflies. But the monarch butterfly is poisonous to its predators. If a bird or another insect eats it, they will get very sick, and possibly die. The colors and patterns on the wings of the monarch serve as a warning to would be predators.

So it’s like, that dude’s analogy in using that specific butterfly seemed creepy to me. And telling me I’m a caterpillar and shit…well I’d rather stay as one, and not turn into some poisonous butterfly. So there.

I mean it’s great that they give food to the needy, and I sure needed it…but to this day, his speech was a little insulting. :/

Jeruba's avatar

So, @elbanditoroso—not to single you out, since others have said the same thing, but I’m wondering: do you truly mean “as long as they don’t try to push their beliefs or practices on me”?

So it doesn’t bother you to read that people waving hate signs are disrupting a private funeral service? or that people want to banish science-based teachings in a classroom? Do you want your prescriptions to be dispensed by a pharmacist who believes that God’s rules supersede doctors’ orders—even if it doesn’t affect your prescription? or treated by a doctor who learned in school that the origin of humanity is in some dust molded by a giant hand? Does it matter? You are not affected if some people who are distinguished by a certain manner of dress are exempted from regulations that are applied to other people—or singled out for special scrutiny?

In other words, as long as a person of belief doesn’t come at you personally with a ritual, restriction, or dogma that you’re being forced to accept, you don’t mind what they do to education, the law, or the social structure? what kind of ridiculous policies they might enact? As long as you don’t feel it at the private, individual level, it’s all right?

Just asking.

ucme's avatar

I don’t give a fuck what your religion is unless you’re a super persistent jehovas witness banging on my front door like a stubborn donkey with piles.
Then I care, I care so much i’m liable to fill your gormless gob with my booted foot & watch you limp away picking up your teeth as you go.

jerv's avatar

@Jeruba I think that is the problem; people don’t realize how much they are affected by something unless it explicitly steps right in front of their face and screams at them personally.

Jeruba's avatar

@jerv, thanks for the encapsulation.

Just to follow one line of thought: let’s take a pharmacist who doesn’t believe people should practice birth control and therefore refuses to dispense birth control pills. (This is not a made-up example.)

Suppose that that pharmacist, instead of declining to fill a prescription, decides to fill it with something other than the prescribed med?

This part is just hypothetical, now. Let’s just follow it through.

Instead of supplying the contraceptive, let’s imagine that he provides something with another active ingredient or no active ingredient—a placebo—so that the customer doesn’t know she has to go elsewhere for her prescription. Instead she believes that she is protected against pregnancy, but she isn’t.

Now suppose that a pharmacist who feels justified in making such moral judgments—and acting upon them—subscribes to a belief about who is or is not fit to live. It’s her religion, and who can argue with that? So she gives placebos to people with certain diseases (who ought not to live anyway, since obviously it’s God’s will that they should die, or they wouldn’t have the disease), or people of certain races, or people who wear certain symbols on their clothing.

How is her decision to impose her morality on unwitting patients substantially different from those of people who use legislation to accomplish the same end?

And how far is it from there to taking her convictions out of the pharmacy and onto the street or into the neighborhood, the schoolroom, the seat of government?

Now let’s say that patients who use a certain pharmacy start dying off—or having babies—in unprecedented numbers, and authorities make the connection. The perpetrator is arrested and prosecuted. Is this a person who should be admired, and possibly exonerated, for standing up for her faith and becoming a willing sacrifice to her belief? To what lengths do we go to tolerate her extreme behavior?

Oh, we require her to stop where the law kicks in to protect the rights of those patients? Is that where the line is? What if the law in her state was made by people who believe as she does?

Anyone who claims to know the will of God and to act on it scares me, even if they are half a world away and what they’re doing has no conceivable effect on my life. To think there’s no possible connection is simply a delusion.

On September 10, 2001, how many people in New York thought their lives were affected by the beliefs of a bunch of extremists in the Middle East?

It’s one thing to be a martyr to one’s own beliefs; it’s another to be a martyr to someone else’s.

JLeslie's avatar

I think there is a huge difference between someone knocking on my door and someone trying to change the laws of the land or breaking the law for that matter. I’d rather Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses not knock on my door and Christians not make every other word in their sentence about God and Jesus and blessings and prayer, but honestly, those things don’t happen enough to really trouble me. The majority of JW’s, Mormons, and Christians I know don’t do anything of the sort in my presence, especially not my friends. However, some of them definitely want the country to be “different” and want laws to support their beliefs.

@Jeruba What do you think about the founder of Dominoes Pizza (I can’t remember his name) who wants to, or maybe he already did it, develop a community that is Catholic and I would assume would have doctors who don’t prescribe birth control or do abortions if he actually has doctors within the community? Do you think it is ok? I equate it to the Amish having their own life and culture still within the boundaries of the US.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

“Why should we care…”?

Because with caring, comes understanding, compassion, patience, and dialogue.

This can only lead to peace.

War comes from not caring.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think it depends on how you would define “care” in this instance. Saying “I don’t care what religion a person subscribes to” can indicate patience and tolerance. On the other hand, saying “I care a lot about what religion a person belongs to if it’s the WRONG religion!” shows intolerance.

flo's avatar

“Should we care when they act on those beliefs and their actions threaten the peace, tranquility and order of our lives?”
So, in these heated discussions it is the religious people are the culprits always or almost always? Not in this case.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I wouldn’t call THIS a heated discussion!

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Jeruba – yes, it bothers me that people from that church are picketing at funerals, and so on. But their belief, as odious as it is, is protected by the first amendment. So legally, they have the right. I don’t like it, but it’s legal.

But you were not asking a legal question, you were asking a religious one. I wouldn’t tell them how to practice their religion, and I wouldn’t want them to tell me how to practice mine. It would be hypocritical of me to take away their right to be obnoxious under the guise of religion, because I want that same freedom to believe obnoxious things.

Jeruba's avatar

@elbanditoroso, no, my question was actually “Don’t you think you’re affected by indirect as well as direct actions by those who don’t mind imposing their religious beliefs on others?” It doesn’t have to be in your face to impinge on your life and compromise your own freedoms. It doesn’t have to be just about actual practice of your own religion. And it certainly doesn’t have to be just in a country that has a law like the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Here’s what the Pope reportedly said to a crowd of three million in Rio de Janeiro today:

“Where does Jesus send us?” the pontiff asked the audience. “There are no borders, no limits: he sends us to everyone. The Gospel is for everyone, not just for some. It is not only for those who seem closer to us, more receptive, more welcoming. It is for everyone.”

KNOWITALL's avatar

It’s the easiest way to put someone in a ‘box’ for your own comfort. If you say ‘witch’ imagine reactions lol

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Jeruba – not sure why you quoted the pope – that’s exactly the type of belief-pushing that I react negatively to. He was pushing the Gospel ( a religious tome if ever there was one) and promoting it as a panacea.

Well, I’m not going to tell the pope what he can and cannot say, but his entreaties are completely lost on me, and the premise of his message is unproven and irrational. So I will listen to his words and once again view them as absurd. But totally his right to say them.

Jeruba's avatar

@elbanditoroso, that’s my point: part of that package is a belief that it’s all right to push your belief on others. He’s just told three million people, as well as the rest of the world, that believers in the Gospel are privileged and don’t have to mind their own business or respect boundaries.

And it doesn’t stop at beliefs. That’s why I care if others have beliefs that make them think they’re entitled to interfere with my life—indirectly as well as directly.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie “I think there is a huge difference between someone knocking on my door and someone trying to change the laws of the land or breaking the law for that matter.”

Yes; the former is annoying while the latter is dangerous. However, the latter would not have the power if not voted for by the former, so there is some culpability there. But you are correct; the guy who drives the getaway car for a bank robbery isn’t as guilty as the guy who just shot 2 tellers in the face with a shotgun.

fundevogel's avatar

In person I generally avoid talking about religion with people unless we are already close. And this is an entirely pragmatic decision. These other people, people I work with, people I interact with, we might not be close, but if I meet you I am by definition interacting with you. And if I am ineracting with you it will be harder to do if I discover you are very religious. Not because I think you’re wrong, we’re all wrong about different things, but because in my experience discovering someone is very religious is usually ugly. It’s exposed in justifications of homophobia and single-minded dismissal of science, logic and often even history. You don’t need to fly a plane into a building or shoot a doctor to be twisted by religion.

This week at work religion did come up. And no one there knew I was an atheist. So I said very little. Instead I offered gentle challenges about the ethicacy of a religion that would condemn all that “bet on the wrong team” to eternal torture. Her response, “but all you have to do to avoid it is believe.”

This is what is so wrong with too many religions. This woman will never kill someone in the name of her faith, but she has been taught the price of idealogical non-conformity, no matter how it manifests itself, is eternal suffering and she sees nothing wrong with this punishment. Because we think differently than her. As far as she was concerned it was an easy thing to believe and if you couldn’t manage to do just that one little thing to get good with God, well of course you should burn. So just believe why don’t you.

Somehow, it makes it harder to get on with people once you know they think vast swathes of humanity deserve eternal torture. Once you know that the price they pay for comfort and joy is the the surrender of the freedom to think for themselves and maybe the desire to do so as well.

So do I care what other people believe? Very much. Because I don’t what to be around people that have been rendered callous, cruel or ignorant whether it be by faith or any other means.

deni's avatar

I do not care at all unless that person believes their view is 100% the correct one and tries to force it on others. That is often the case, that is why so many people care. Like, “My religion says that abortion is a sin and murder.” Great, do not get an abortion. No one will try to change your mind. But please do not tell me that because that’s the way you feel about it, that I have to feel the same way. But so many people are like that! It’s so insane!!!!!!!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@deni I do understand your point, and would say that to some of us, abortion being legal is like watching an entire group of children being slaughtered. To us, they are alive in the womb, and already people. Kind of like courts ruling that killing a pregnant woman is murder times two.

You don’t have to feel the same way, and I’m not going to protest your clinic or anything like that, because it is your choice. Christianity is not the only religion that thinks all life is sacred, do you rant against Buddhism or other groups?

jerv's avatar

@KNOWITALL It’s hard for many to believe the “all life is sacred” argument from those who have a history of killing. At best, it makes those less radical people who happen to share similar views suspect in a guilt-by-association way. It’s bad to terminate a pregnancy that will result in a brain-dead child and/or kill the mother but it’s okay to kill a Mexican hopping over a fence? I think you can see how such inconsistencies can be seen as insanity.

I bring that example up as there are many who hold both beliefs, and since many like to label and make snap judgments, your stance on abortion places you in with the clinic-bombers in the eyes of some. In other words, you’re stigmatized due to the beliefs of others, so it’s fair to say that what others believe affects you.

Is it wrong to care about stuff that affects you? I think not. And having something affect you in subtle, far-reaching ways as opposed to direct and obvious ways is no justification for apathy.

rojo's avatar

It is like obsessing over what kind (if any) underwear someone is wearing. As long as they wear it on the inside of their clothes, who gives a sh*t.

rojo's avatar

Um, Superman, you are, of course, the noted exeption here.

and maybe Madonna, but it has been a long time since we saw anything of her

fundevogel's avatar

@jerv Sometimes it seems like what they actually mean is, “all life is sacred, until it vacates a vagina.”

glacial's avatar

@jerv “since many like to label and make snap judgments, your stance on abortion places you in with the clinic-bombers in the eyes of some. In other words, you’re stigmatized due to the beliefs of others, so it’s fair to say that what others believe affects you.”

It’s an interesting point, but I’m not sure this is the best example of how one is affected by others’ beliefs. It’s not difficult to imagine the other side of this coin. I think that religion is dangerous for humanity, but I’m not about to go around bombing churches to stop it. If someone did, would I worry that I would be stigmatized due to the beliefs of others, either because of the name “atheist” or an overlap of specific ideas? No, I would call out anyone who lumped me together with that crazy person (why does this suddenly sound familiar?), and I would go about my business. In other words, I think this kind of effect is not likely to be very motivating.

jerv's avatar

@glacial I rarely assume people are rational. Even if only 0.001% of humanity is utterly insane, the population of just the us alone is large enough to have a lot of crazy people, and we are but a small fraction of the world population. Look at the effect 19 terrorists had on the world’s perception of Muslims and you’ll see that even a small percentage can have vast influence.

JLeslie's avatar

@glacial But, let’s say a large part of the group is participating. For instance, it makes me sick that Bernie Maddoff was such a crook. I hate even more that he was Jewish, because as a Jewish person myself I don’t want to be associated with someone like that. I don’t know if non Jewish people even picked up on the fact that he is Jewish, but certainly banking and finance is associated with my “group” and he is a complete embarrassment. i agree with you, in my mind he is simply a criminal, he has nothing to do with me, my family and my friends and how we treat others and our integrity.

Now take pro-life, do they publically come out in droves when a nut job kills a doctor who performs abortions? I’ve heard a lot of people say Muslims should come out and speak out against radical Muslims, do Christians do that? Maybe they do and I have not been paying attention.

I agree with you that we should not let one or two criminals label or define a movement or religion we identify with. However, when it is more than just a few the problem is more complex.

I have a few friends who are Catholic, who would never get an abortion, but will not say they are “pro-life” because of what too many in the group do. They don’t want to be associated with people who picket clinics, God forbid kill doctors, or who show such intolerance for other people. Not to mention, they understand some women get abortions when they desperately want their baby, and to torture those women with having to cross a picket line, feel unsafe, or feel misjudged is so unkind it is simply not how they want to go about promoting maintaining a pregnancy rather than terminating one.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@jerv & @fundevogel That argument about Christians killing is pretty weak. I’m a Christian and I haven’t killed anyone just to clarify – lol, not has most Christians I know.

Radicals, like the ones who bomb clinics, are in every walk of life and most religious sects, so I can’t defend that except they do truly think they’re doing God’s work, maybe a mental illness that pushes them to those extremes though.

As far as not caring about children after they’re born, that argument is also weak as I’ve posted in a thread directly about that. I think it’s a talking point of interest to non-Christians but it has no bearing in the real world because most churches, like mine as a child, open their wallets and doors to the needy always.

@JLeslie One of the reasons I do NOT picket or anything is because, like you said, I won’t torture a woman who is obviously making a hard decision, much like the one my mom made when she decided to keep me against my bio-dad’s wishes. She said it’s heartrending and very personal, the decision to keep, abort or adopt, so I’ll leave that to God and the woman. What I’d really like to see is women being smart and educated enough not to have an unplanned pregnancy, and that is where Reps and Libs often clash – personal responsiblity.

JLeslie's avatar

@KNOWITALL I always think of the Rep and Libs agreeing about preventing unplanned pregnancies. Just to clarify, I wasn’t even talking about women who become pregnant by accident and then need to make a hard decision whether or not to abort. I was talking about women who planned and wanted their pregnancy and child and because of medical reasons have to or choose to abort. You may have heard me tell the following stories before.

I know two women who aborted because there was basically no brain. One was a girlfriend of mine who had her first child through IVF because she had fertility dificulty. Her second pregnancy happened by chance, a miraculous surprise and they were thrilled, only to find out the sad news the baby would never be viable. She wanted to abort when she found out.

The other was the wife a man I knew. They had tried for m ths to get pregnant, and when she finally was, she found out the horrible status of her baby. They are Catholic, vote pro-life, their families are very involved in their church. She could not get the abortion where they live, because there after 14 weeks you can’t get an abortion. She could get one 2.5 hours away where her parents live. They debated even telling her parents, because they were afraid the family would want her to continue with the pregnancy. But, the young woman really wanted the fetus out. Plus, they really wanted a baby, and as long as she was pregnant they could not be trying again. They did tell her parents and they immediately were supportive.

This is why I say pro choice keeps abortions safe for pro-lifers. Those women could have continued with the pregnancies to term, but why not let them have control over their body and their desire to have a child in those cases. I just think prolife often does not contemplate the complexity of pregnancy and child birth. I do understand that many people abort healthy fetuses, I am not trying to say the majority of abortions are health related.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@JLeslie Sure and I agree with you. I’ve heard both sides of the ‘terminal or unhealthy’ fetus argument from a mother of two Downs Syndrome babies when she was berated for having a second when she knew it would be DS.

You know why I feel the way I do so I’ll leave it here. Peace!

glacial's avatar

@JLeslie “I don’t know if non Jewish people even picked up on the fact that he is Jewish, but certainly banking and finance is associated with my “group” and he is a complete embarrassment.”

I guess this is why I agree with @KNOWITALL in that it’s a weak argument for caring what others believe (i.e., the point of the question). This sort of “Ugh! Don’t associate me with that guy!” reaction is not limited to religion – it occurs any time one shares characteristics with a group of other people, and there is a risk that some subset of that group will do something embarrassing.

JLeslie's avatar

@glacial I tend to agree. But, I think if I am honest maybe I apply it with some things and not others. I have to think about it more.

jerv's avatar

@KNOWITALL When it comes to forming opinions, many times perception and bias mean more than reality or facts. And when the radicals grab the headlines while non-hate-filled people like you remain relatively silent and obscure, it’s easy to see how at least some may consider that to mean some form of complicit agreement.

I’m not saying it’s right, merely that that’s how things are. It doesn’t have to be a strong (or even valid) argument to gain traction.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@jerv Oh I get it, but the media cares about those money-making headlines, not reality, which is why the rest of us have to learn to look past headlines into the heart of the matter. Which is why I love fluther, it keeps us grounded a little better I think.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You can’t ground me! You’re not the boss of me!

mattbrowne's avatar

We should care when people hold religious beliefs or worldviews that violate the Golden Rule.

ETpro's avatar

@mattbrowne That works for me!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther