NATION

PASSWORD

Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Hakons
Senator
 
Posts: 4224
Founded: Jul 14, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Hakons » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:13 pm

UKCS wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Those Italians would like the honor of being named, and would certainly criticize you for what you attribute to be fantasy.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.


Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality. :p

User avatar
El-Amin Caliphate
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12145
Founded: Apr 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:14 pm

Kubumba Tribe's sister nation. NOT A PUPPET! >w< In fact, this one came 1st.
Proud Full Member of the Council of Islamic Cooperation!^u^
I'm a (Pan) Islamist ;)
Scroll down to The Archregimancy's post. This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't ban anyone who uses kafir.
CLICK THIS

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51274
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:14 pm

Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. Not that I need the coffee, but you know... :3

So apparently I am an ENFP!

Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson

User avatar
El-Amin Caliphate
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12145
Founded: Apr 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:15 pm

Hakons wrote:
UKCS wrote:I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.


Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality. :p

If you wanna know about Al-Islam, go the Islamic Discussion Thread.
Kubumba Tribe's sister nation. NOT A PUPPET! >w< In fact, this one came 1st.
Proud Full Member of the Council of Islamic Cooperation!^u^
I'm a (Pan) Islamist ;)
Scroll down to The Archregimancy's post. This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't ban anyone who uses kafir.
CLICK THIS

User avatar
Khasinkonia
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5433
Founded: Feb 02, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Khasinkonia » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:17 pm

As I'm sure others have said, it's a matter of some people believing a country founded by a demographic mostly following a particular religion should use religion as a substratum. I'm using linguistic terms because I'm a linguistics nerd, not a religious one, so I'm just using what I've got.

As far as I can tell, in the minds of people who want more theocratic government systems want it because they believe [insert religion and/or moral system here] is the best moral guide, so, as far as they're concerned, it should be treated as such(e.g. More theocratic government elements, greater religious presence in everyday life, etc)
At home I’m a “flag-burning liberal,” at school I’m a moderate, and abroad I’m center-right.
MtF Episcopalian, and yes, those two indeed coexist.

Empty promises and blind faith
Many a dictatorship make

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40639
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:18 pm



I meant when you started claiming that I want shariah implemented. Or are we pretending that never happened?
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
El-Amin Caliphate
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12145
Founded: Apr 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:18 pm

Luminesa wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I've seen this before, AlHamdulillah.

...Translation, please? Apologies, don't know Arabic.

Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.
Kubumba Tribe's sister nation. NOT A PUPPET! >w< In fact, this one came 1st.
Proud Full Member of the Council of Islamic Cooperation!^u^
I'm a (Pan) Islamist ;)
Scroll down to The Archregimancy's post. This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't ban anyone who uses kafir.
CLICK THIS

User avatar
UKCS
Diplomat
 
Posts: 839
Founded: Oct 04, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby UKCS » Mon Sep 25, 2017 3:23 pm

Hakons wrote:
UKCS wrote:I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.


Christianity, as with all religions and many other aspects of humanity, is dependent on faith. There are Christian Apologetics that use logical analysis, with C.S. Lewis being one of the more famous ones. You can ask this question on the Christian Discussion Thread if you want, because this thread should focus on the relationship between religious and secular laws, and not on the nature of reality. :p

Reality being secular, I assume?
I am female. Refer to me as a female, please. Call me Megan.
☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭☭
Any semblance of the old nation(s) no longer exists. This new nation is approximately 260 years after the last update to the former incarnation of this account. It was physically painful to delete all those factbooks....

Authoritarian socialist, British, and damned proud of it. The SNP are traitors, don't be fooled.

User avatar
Minzerland II
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5358
Founded: Aug 27, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Minzerland II » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:13 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Religiously-derived' laws, such as those in regards to abortion or LGBT rights, are not contrary to the US Constitution, as far as I am aware. Furthermore, in 'Everson v. Board of Education', through Justice Hugo Black, it clearly defines the 'establishment of religion' clause, which does not prohibit 'religiously-derived' laws unless it breaks the US Constitution.

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.'


So you're saying that writing religious exemptions into discrimination law isn't "[passing] laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I've always taken that, '[...]laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another[...]', to mean special treatment, protection, or state-sponsored proselytisation of a certain religion, among other things.
Previous Profile: Minzerland
Pope Innocent III wrote:I call myself servant, not lord, according to what the Lord said to the apostles... The honor is great, since I am instituted over the family; but the burden is heavy, since I am servant to the whole family. “I am debtor to the wise and to the foolish” (Rom. 1:14). One can scarcely be served worthily by many; how much less can all be served worthily by one.
St Anselm of Canterbury wrote:[…]who ever heard of anything having two mothers or two fathers? (Monologion, pg. 63)

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51274
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:18 pm

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Luminesa wrote:...Translation, please? Apologies, don't know Arabic.

Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. Not that I need the coffee, but you know... :3

So apparently I am an ENFP!

Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson

User avatar
New Luckyland
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 140
Founded: Aug 11, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby New Luckyland » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:18 pm



Was this research peer-reviewed? How are Pew Research Center funded? (No criticism, just the usual questions.)
I have only two social filters; low self esteem and sobriety.

User avatar
Luminesa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 51274
Founded: Dec 09, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Luminesa » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:20 pm


You want them to be treated equally? That would mean that you want Shariah law to be implemented. Otherwise, that would be Islamophobic, wouldn't it?
Catholic, pro-life, and proud of it. I prefer my debates on religion, politics, and sports with some coffee and a little Aquinas and G.K. CHESTERTON here and there. Not that I need the coffee, but you know... :3

So apparently I am an ENFP!

Unofficial #1 fan of the Who Dat Nation.
"I'm just a singer of simple songs, I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN, but I'm not sure I can tell you the difference in Iraq and Iran. But I know Jesus, and I talk to God, and I remember this from when I was young:
faith, hope and love are some good things He gave us...
and the greatest is love."
-Alan Jackson

User avatar
Telconi
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21289
Founded: Oct 08, 2016
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Telconi » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:22 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Minzerland II wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but 'Religiously-derived' laws, such as those in regards to abortion or LGBT rights, are not contrary to the US Constitution, as far as I am aware. Furthermore, in 'Everson v. Board of Education', through Justice Hugo Black, it clearly defines the 'establishment of religion' clause, which does not prohibit 'religiously-derived' laws unless it breaks the US Constitution.

'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State.'


So you're saying that writing religious exemptions into discrimination law isn't "[passing] laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another"?


Failing to write exemptions would be.
-2.25 LEFT
-3.23 LIBERTARIAN

PRO:
-Weapons Rights
-Gender Equality
-LGBTQ Rights
-Racial Equality
-Religious Freedom
-Freedom of Speech
-Freedom of Association
-Life
-Limited Government
-Non Interventionism
-Labor Unions
-Environmental Protections
ANTI:
-Racism
-Sexism
-Bigotry In All Forms
-Government Overreach
-Government Surveillance
-Freedom For Security Social Transactions
-Unnecessary Taxes
-Excessively Specific Government Programs
-Foreign Entanglements
-Religious Extremism
-Fascists Masquerading as "Social Justice Warriors"

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people,it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 93206
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:25 pm

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
El-Amin Caliphate
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12145
Founded: Apr 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:03 pm

Luminesa wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Oh yeah, you just reminded me, I can't speak Arabic! It might offend somebody! >nod<
AlHamdulillah = Praise be to Allah (SWT)
SWT = Subhanahu wa ta'ala = Glory to Him most high.

...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.
Kubumba Tribe's sister nation. NOT A PUPPET! >w< In fact, this one came 1st.
Proud Full Member of the Council of Islamic Cooperation!^u^
I'm a (Pan) Islamist ;)
Scroll down to The Archregimancy's post. This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't ban anyone who uses kafir.
CLICK THIS

User avatar
The of Japan
Minister
 
Posts: 2639
Founded: Jul 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby The of Japan » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:15 pm

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Luminesa wrote:...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

some forum users used it wrongly, it got banned. that is unfortunately how life often works.

User avatar
Soyouso
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1526
Founded: May 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Soyouso » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:19 pm

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Luminesa wrote:...I'm not offended by Arabic. I just happen to not know the language.

No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

User avatar
The of Japan
Minister
 
Posts: 2639
Founded: Jul 30, 2016
New York Times Democracy

Postby The of Japan » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:25 pm

Soyouso wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 40639
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:27 pm

The of Japan wrote:
Soyouso wrote:I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic, it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam. It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.


And Barbarian literally means "does not speak ancient Greek".
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Columbiana
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Sep 24, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Columbiana » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:28 pm

Because Jesus needs laws too, apparently.

User avatar
FelrikTheDeleted
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8758
Founded: Aug 27, 2016
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby FelrikTheDeleted » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:29 pm

Vassenor wrote:
The of Japan wrote:heathen literally means a non-Christian, same with kafir and unbeliever (in a bible and quranic sense, of course.


And Barbarian literally means "does not speak ancient Greek".


Your point being?
Last edited by FelrikTheDeleted on Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." - John 15:13.
Deleted for violating the rules at 966 posts.
RIP Dagashi Shojo - RIP Renewed Imperial Germany - RIP Kieven Peoples - RIP Balk - RIP Jochi

User avatar
Holy Tedalonia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8517
Founded: Nov 14, 2016
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Holy Tedalonia » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:37 pm

Vassenor wrote:So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

My arguement would be if it's unethical or not which brings in philosophy. Rather then bring in a pain load of philosophy just consider this. To them abortion is unethical, since their ethics are surrounded by their religion. In all honesty their arguement cause the Bible says so is not exactly wrong, since their ethics revolve around it. Many consider it is unethical to mistreat gays, while others consider it unethical to be gay. So who is right the morals surrounding the Bible or the morals surrounding the culture? When it comes down to it morals is the most simple form. It's not hypocritical at the least, since ethics often oppose one another. The issue is they need to say it's against their morals rather then against their religion, so people don't make assumptions like this.
Otho Tedgustus President Esteemed of Holy Tedalonia.
FACTBOOK
Status based off index:
Tier: 7
Level: 0
Type: 6
A 12 civilization, according to this index.
NS Stats don't matter | warning leader does not represent everyone's attitude | Massive Update in progress, gist is a succession of power is about to happen. Q&A about Holy Tedalonia and more
Name: Ted
Ideology: Capitalism
Political Compass: Social Libertarian for some reason
Race: Vampire
Political Side: Right
Favorite Senator: Ted Cruz (Ted's have to help out Ted's)
Status: Healthy and as strong as a starved ox
Religion: a Pious Christian (although that doesn't stop me from RPing against good every now and then)
I M P E R I A LR E P U B L I C

User avatar
El-Amin Caliphate
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12145
Founded: Apr 05, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby El-Amin Caliphate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:56 pm

Soyouso wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:No lol, I wasn't referring to you. I got warned for using an Arabic word (kafir, to be precise) because some person precious feels would get hurt cuz he/she might get triggered by anything remotely related to Al-Islam or Arabs, or even MENA people. So I just use that line because apparently, a language or part of a language can be banned now.

I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic

I know, I just use it for any Arabic religious term I use
Soyouso wrote:it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam.

No it's not
Soyouso wrote:It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

https://www.google.com/search?q=heathen ... ve&ssui=on But still, heathen is used in a derogatory way. Kafir isn't, and just because some do doesn't mean you ban its use.
Kubumba Tribe's sister nation. NOT A PUPPET! >w< In fact, this one came 1st.
Proud Full Member of the Council of Islamic Cooperation!^u^
I'm a (Pan) Islamist ;)
Scroll down to The Archregimancy's post. This means we can use the word, just not in a bad way. So don't ban anyone who uses kafir.
CLICK THIS

User avatar
Farnhamia
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 97636
Founded: Jun 20, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Farnhamia » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:02 pm

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Soyouso wrote:I don't think they were offended by the fact that you spoke Arabic

I know, I just use it for any Arabic religious term I use
Soyouso wrote:it's because kafir is a derogatory term for nonbelievers of Islam.

No it's not
Soyouso wrote:It would be like a Christian calling people heathens for not being Christian.

https://www.google.com/search?q=heathen ... ve&ssui=on But still, heathen is used in a derogatory way. Kafir isn't, and just because some do doesn't mean you ban its use.

A word of advice from your friendly neighborhood Mod, be careful how you use "kafir." It's derogatory meanings can get you in trouble unless you are very careful in setting the context for it's use.
Freedom ... or cake. ~ Ashmoria (RIP)
Make Earth Great Again: Stop Continental Drift!
And Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the water ...
"Make yourself at home, Frank. Hit somebody." RIP Don Rickles
My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right. ~ Carl Schurz
<Sigh> NSG...where even the atheists are Augustinians. ~ The Archregimancy
Now the foot is on the other hand ~ Kannap
RIP Dyakovo| In support of Arch

User avatar
Stormwrath
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6854
Founded: Feb 08, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Stormwrath » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:03 pm

Destructive Government Economic System wrote:Religion shouldn't have a place in politics. If you enforce a law that is based off of a religious belief, then you are going to be opposed by people of another religious belief. It's just too feeble to openly discuss in politics.

As for the OP's question, it's because people want religious freedom. The New England colonies are the best example of this that you're going to get.

Okay, I guess we shouldn't enforce laws against murder, theft, and adultery, aye? After all, not all of us are Jews and Christians. :roll:
N O L I T EF U T U R I ST I M E R E ,N O L I T EP R A E T E R I T I SL A C R I M A R E

In Memorial of the Fallen — Best School RP, 2015 & 2016 P2TM Awards; Best OOC, 2016 P2TM Awards
Personification Life: Epic
◢◤ RIP Avicii (1989-2018)
Filipino, 20, Male, Pro-DU30. Fite me.
Call me Storm or Sailor.
Best School RPer, 2016 P2TM Awards
DeviantArt | OOC Info and Quirky Quotes
Ifreann wrote:A terrible voice echoed across the land, and then all was war.

Your waifu is shit! Shiiiiiiiiit!
The Telosman Nations— PT/FanT
Perseid Federation — FT (FT-Prime)
Valkea — MT
I wear teal, blue & pink for Swith-senpai.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dresderstan, First American Empire, Google Adsense [Bot], Intermarium Union, Karnatadesha, Majestic-12 [Bot], Neanderthaland, ZUN

Advertisement

Remove ads