DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Religious Belief Unhealthy for Society?
Pages:  
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 275, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/06/2005 06:16:19 PM · #201
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A 2 year old is already alive, has feelings, has memories, is loved, feels love, gives love and so on. A 10 year old has friends, goals, self awareness, hobbies, is loved, feels love, gives love, etc.


Look, I hope you guys recognize that I earnestly try to work through issues with you...When talking about ethics, spirituality, politics, etc. I never try to push my point across without truly trying to work through the issue and gain a better understanding.

MadMordegon, your statement above evades the issue (something I honestly don't see you doing as much as others) as it doesn't account for a 1 day old baby...or a mentally handicapped person...etc.

Now please don't come up with some supposed irregularity in the arguments of those on the "christian right" because I don't belong to that group and I don't care...I'd like to hear you re-address the argument with the above point in mind. Can you?

Message edited by author 2005-10-06 18:17:17.
 10/06/2005 06:21:21 PM · #202
It's called "retroactive abortion" and societies have been doing it since the dawn of recorded history. Chinese were famous for drowining female children. Many societies have "terminated" children that they considered "defective". It's not a new thing.

I'm not advocating it, just inserting a historical footnote.

R.
 10/06/2005 06:24:40 PM · #203
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's called "retroactive abortion" and societies have been doing it since the dawn of recorded history. Chinese were famous for drowining female children. Many societies have "terminated" children that they considered "defective". It's not a new thing.

I'm not advocating it, just inserting a historical footnote.

R.


And it shows more consistency of belief than many arguments presented to me today. At least I would logically understand (and be disgusted by) such a view...
 10/06/2005 06:27:08 PM · #204
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A 2 year old is already alive, has feelings, has memories, is loved, feels love, gives love and so on. A 10 year old has friends, goals, self awareness, hobbies, is loved, feels love, gives love, etc.


Look, I hope you guys recognize that I earnestly try to work through issues with you...When talking about ethics, spirituality, politics, etc. I never try to push my point across without truly trying to work through the issue and gain a better understanding.

MadMordegon, your statement above evades the issue (something I honestly don't see you doing as much as others) as it doesn't account for a 1 day old baby...or a mentally handicapped person...etc.

Now please don't come up with some supposed irregularity in the arguments of those on the "christian right" because I don't belong to that group and I don't care...I'd like to hear you re-address the argument with the above point in mind. Can you?


First off, you CANT ABORT A BABY THATS ALREADY BEEN BORN. Please stop repeating this argument, its stupid. I also don’t see how what I said avoids the issue, but I'll elaborate further if you wish.

A 1 day old baby is not a fetus, its a born human, it breaths air, its opening its eyes, its being put to its mothers nipple, it feels her warmth and comfort against her breast, its beginning to become a person. The parents are also obviously going to instantly gain huge attachment to the child aswell once its been born and can be seen, heard and held, etc.

Also, nobody is advocating last minute abortions (like an 8.5 months when the fetus is nearly fully formed).

As far as mentally retarded, I don’t see how that is relevant here.
10/06/2005 06:45:23 PM · #205
Originally posted by theSaj:
Originally posted by Riponlady:

But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs!


I want to ask you to just take a simple step back. And consider, if you did believe it was a human being. How would you think? where would you stand? if you just took a single moment to think from that perspective you'd probably understand pro-lifers and their actions. And instead of referring to them so derogatorily and insulting - you might say "hey...I see where you're coming from, I think differently...but yeah...if I thought as you I'd probably be against it".

- Jason


Could you please tell me where I have been "derogatory" or" insulting" towards pro-lifers?

I had no intention making any intolerant personal or general comments about an individual or a group.I have stated my views and opinions.Obviously you consider I have insulted someone so please inform me how so I can consider if I need to apologise.

I do understand where pro-lifers are coming from - they believe a foetus is a human being and abortion is murder. I just happen to disagree with them!
P

Message edited by author 2005-10-06 18:50:07.
 10/06/2005 06:47:20 PM · #206
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by Riponlady:

But I don't believe that a foetus is a living human being! So it is not nonsense in my beliefs!


That's my point...it's not a debate over "freedom of choice". It's a debate over whether or not a foetus is a living human being.

Imagine if somebody said that pygmies were too primitive to consider human beings and that their slaughter should be allowed. On this you and I agree...it's awful and should not be allowed. How would we respond to that person's argument that "hey, we're both going to disagree so making it illegal for me to kill pygmies is impossible".

That is why I called your statement nonsense, as it assumes that your position is correct. Whether or not abortions should be illegal is a very debatable subject, contrary to what you said.


I accept your point. I should have said IMO it is impossible to make abortion illegal.
P
 10/06/2005 06:55:32 PM · #207
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
A 1 day old baby is not a fetus, its a born human, it breaths air, its opening its eyes, its being put to its mothers nipple, it feels her warmth and comfort against her breast, its beginning to become a person. The parents are also obviously going to instantly gain huge attachment to the child aswell once its been born and can be seen, heard and held, etc.


So your argument is different now...whereas before your point was that a fetus is fully dependant on the mother you have realized that that point doesn't work and have given me different reasons. That's fine, we're working through this now.

My point is to show that we must all come up with reasons that we believer or don't believe that a fetus is a life as valuable as an adult or maturing child. That presents a gray area, one which is very much worth of debate. The reasons you gave are subjective (yet reasonable), but another might reason for a different time period.

Your last post, for example, gives your reasons against "discarding" a life of a human that has exited the mother. Great, but we still haven't gotten very far to prove that abortion "can't" be made illegal. Far from it, I think.
 10/06/2005 06:58:09 PM · #208
Abortion can easily be made "illegal" but that will not stop it -- it will simply redefine a clinical procedure as a crime.
 10/06/2005 06:58:26 PM · #209
Back to the issue of religions effects on society.

It seems that most everyone agrees that it’s not necessarily religion that’s the problem, since most religions advocate good things, but the human factor involved.

That being said, since humans are the only animals that use religion on this Earth, and without humans religion would not exist, we should assume that what has happened in history and today with religion will always be the case, because the human factor.

So then the whole argument of “well religions are inherently good” is really pointless since religion doesn’t exist without the human factor.

So, we should then assume that no matter the religion, humans will pervert it, abuse it and use it as a tool for bad bad things.

All that being said, and with what has happened in our history (the crusades, and so on) and with what’s happening now (Muslim extremism, Middle East chaos, US polarization, reasons to discriminate and hate), I think its plain to see that in a human society, the bad more outweighs the good.

“Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully
As when they do it from religious conviction.”
- Blaise Pascal
10/06/2005 07:00:47 PM · #210
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
“Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully
As when they do it from religious conviction.”
- Blaise Pascal

How is quoting French mathemeticians going to help us? : )
 10/06/2005 07:03:06 PM · #211
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Back to the issue of religions effects on society.

It seems that most everyone agrees that it’s not necessarily religion that’s the problem, since most religions advocate good things, but the human factor involved.

That being said, since humans are the only animals that use religion on this Earth, and without humans religion would not exist, we should assume that what has happened in history and today with religion will always be the case, because the human factor.

So then the whole argument of “well religions are inherently good” is really pointless since religion doesn’t exist without the human factor.

So, we should then assume that no matter the religion, humans will pervert it, abuse it and use it as a tool for bad bad things.

All that being said, and with what has happened in our history (the crusades, and so on) and with what’s happening now (Muslim extremism, Middle East chaos, US polarization, reasons to discriminate and hate), I think its plain to see that in a human society, the bad more outweighs the good.

“Men never do evil so completely or cheerfully
As when they do it from religious conviction.”
- Blaise Pascal


Hey, haven't we played the Blaise Pascal quote game in a thread long ago? ;0)

I agree with everything you've sad but your conclusion. You assume that all "religion" (although I prefer the word faith or discipleship - depending on the context) is a creation of humans. If that were the case, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, with hope and with reason, many search for that spirituality which man has not screwed up...that spirituality which is pure and good because it transcends man's screwups.
 10/06/2005 07:14:13 PM · #212
Mad, I too, to some extent/degree, agree with what you've written (excepte the conclusion). However, I also believe that you could substitute "human secularism" for religion, and have the same arguement.

I do not think the bad outweighs the good. I think the bad gets more attention than the good, because it is hard to argue (and not very much fun) about the good stuff that happens.

a very [b]few[b] examples from the more "not-extreme" Christians
-- hospitals set up for the poor that can't afford health care
-- food given (as well as the "tools" for growing crops and food) for others
-- shelters/housing set up for those without

Nah, let's argue all day about those extreme cases that make their whole freakin' "group" look bad. ;)
 10/06/2005 07:17:50 PM · #213
Originally posted by "GeneralE":
So I wonder how many people opposed to abortion believe in justifiable homocide, in killing in self defense?


Probably quite a few. As probably for half the issue is a case of "innoncence" of consequences without choice. Someone trying to kill you is not an innocent. They made a choice to attempt such a heinous action and therefore suffer the consequences.

Originally posted by "GeneralE":

Why shouldn't a woman have the same right to "defend herself" against the parasite growing in her uterus?
(NOTE: a woman's body recognizes the fetus as a "foreign invader" much as it would other parasites -- the particular type of white blood cells known as eosiniphils selectively increase during parasitic infections, allergic reactions, and pregnancy.)


Actually, that's one of the better arguments GeneralE. And also a very relevant admission that it is not a part of the woman's body.

Now, there is some question on whether it is a parasite or a symbiot. And heck, how many parent's have described their live at home children as leeches.

The above is a much better arguement than most given. Tougher one to answer. The woman did have a choice in the conception and some might deem such a contractual obligation of sorts.

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

If you take a fetus out of the mother it dies. A fetus has no consciousness and no awareness. It doesn’t cry, it doesn’t think, it doesn’t love, and its only functions are instinctual.


Great arguments MadMorgan.

If I take a tadpole out of water it dies. If I take you out of the atmosphere - you die. Anything taken out of it's environment dies.

As for a fetus having no consciousness or awareness. Please supply evidence. I've seen videos and evidence to put forth that a fetus has a real sense of pain and endeavors to avoid it.

It doesn't think, not in the least....

My cat doesn't laugh, doesn't cry, doesn't love. Perhaps it's only instinctual...or limited. But it does respond and express in it's own way. Is the necessity for tears a requirement? There are people born without tear ducts. If you mean tears as in it doesn't feel pain...well a fetus does at a fairly early state. If you mean it doesn't feel emotional response. I do not believe you have the evidence to claim such. And a lack of evidence is not proof.

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

A 2 year old is already alive and aware, has feelings, has memories, is loved, feels love, gives love and so on. A 10 year old has friends, goals, self awareness, hobbies, is loved, feels love, gives love, etc.


What about a 2 month old. I don't know if you can quite give it that much more credit. How about a 6 month premature babie compared to a 9 month partial birth abortion?

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

And since you mention logic let me remind that believing in an invisible supernatural creator that not fact or science can prove or even give evidence of, is illogical.


Perhaps....but I've not based any of my arguments or suppositions regarding the discussion of abortion on any spiritual, religious, or metaphysical basis.

Not everything man does is logical or rational. Trust me, I've seen enough friends in bad relationships "loving" the other in quite an irrational and illogical basis. That's not my requirement but the opposition. So I don't have an issue if something is may not be logical. Love seldom is logical...but I am not going to forsake it on logic's behalf.

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

Not to mention, you can’t “abort” a 2 year old, it’s already been born.


Why yes, but it's life can easily be terminated thus "aborting it's life prematurely".

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

Please stop repeating this argument, its stupid.


Okay, to satisfy you semantically...

What is the difference between:

a) terminating... a 2 week fetus
b) terminating... a 2nd term fetus
c) terminating... a 9 month fetus (partial birth abortion)
d) terminating... a baby born prematurely at 6 months
e) terminating... a 2 month old baby
f) terminating... a 2 yr old
g) terminating... a 20 yr old?

Please note, I used termination instead of abort. And as Bear_Music correctly pointed out. What we call hideous & reprehensible is quite common in some cultures. It is not uncommon in many cultures to kill a 2 month old or even a 2 yr old as one would terminate and fetus. In fact, it's consider a much easier method and time of action to some.

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

A 1 day old baby is not a fetus, its a born human, it breaths air, its opening its eyes, its being put to its mothers nipple, it feels her warmth and comfort against her breast, its beginning to become a person. The parents are also obviously going to instantly gain huge attachment to the child aswell once its been born and can be seen, heard and held, etc.


For your info. What you describe as distinguishing items are more so an aspect of the parent and not the baby. Sure it breathes...new environment. It was breathing before too...

The baby felt the warmth of the womb just moments before.

Did you know, there have been studies that have shown possible evidence of enhanced stimulation and development occurring by talking to the baby while still in the womb. In fact, that the child might actually grow accustomed and recognize the voices of the mother AND the father?

That does throw some serious doubts, does it not?

Originally posted by "MadMorgan":

Also, nobody is advocating last minute abortions (like an 8.5 months when the fetus is nearly fully formed).


Okay, let me just check.... ALL of YOU here support the ban on the partial-birth abortion? If so, we can cease discussion on that.
10/06/2005 07:25:12 PM · #214
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Hey, haven't we played the Blaise Pascal quote game in a thread long ago? ;0)


It is still a quote that rings true.

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I agree with everything you've sad but your conclusion. You assume that all "religion" (although I prefer the word faith or discipleship - depending on the context) is a creation of humans. If that were the case, then I would agree with you wholeheartedly.

However, with hope and with reason, many search for that spirituality which man has not screwed up...that spirituality which is pure and good because it transcends man's screwups.


I do not equate spirituality with religion. Neither have exclusive rights.

I consider myself somewhat spiritual but more that of overall life and nature and the awe and wonder that comes with science and the universe. But I am 100% against the use of organized religion.

IMO the whole reason we are even having these debates in the year 2005 is that our culture has become so perverted, materialistic and filled with greed and lack of a connection with nature (concrete jungle), that we have lost our spirituality. Something that native Americans considered a connection with nature and life, each other and all other life on Earth. People often “find spirituality” through religion when they become lost or mentally troubled. They are searching for something, that something is a spiritual connection, mostly lost to the materialistic culture which has fully strayed from nature. Since they don’t find it in natural ways, the void is filled with man made religion.

As the Dalai Lama has said;
“The roadblock to a peaceful and happy twenty-first century is Western materialism and greed.”

And Martin Luther King, Jr.;
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.”

And Standing Bear;
“Man's heart away from nature becomes hard.”

And Mohandas Gandhi;
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
10/06/2005 07:29:02 PM · #215
Saj
Waiting to hear about my insulting posts!

I have said before I do not agree with later abortions - only you have talked about this,

From the religion debate, comparing the USA with UK you may find this interesting
here
P
 10/06/2005 07:31:23 PM · #216
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And Mohandas Gandhi;
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


Another quote I like. So as long as Jesus the Christ had unorganized followers you'd be okay with the spirituality he presented?

I believe that christianity is consistently screwed up by the followers of Jesus (myself included)...I don't know whether or not you identify the following of his teachings as "Christianity" but why would that 'organization' bother you so much if they would only do what he taught?

To me, it sounds like it's the failure of humans that bugs you...it bugs me too, everyday. More than most know.
 10/06/2005 07:32:09 PM · #217
Originally posted by karmat:
Mad, I too, to some extent/degree, agree with what you've written (excepte the conclusion). However, I also believe that you could substitute "human secularism" for religion, and have the same arguement.

I do not think the bad outweighs the good. I think the bad gets more attention than the good, because it is hard to argue (and not very much fun) about the good stuff that happens.

a very [b]few[b] examples from the more "not-extreme" Christians
-- hospitals set up for the poor that can't afford health care
-- food given (as well as the "tools" for growing crops and food) for others
-- shelters/housing set up for those without

Nah, let's argue all day about those extreme cases that make their whole freakin' "group" look bad. ;)


"human secularism" is not a dogmatic human creation based off things that cannot be proven and do not exist to be tested. And I definitely don't agree that it can be substituted for religion in my words.

And as far as those things religious charities do, they are not exclusive to religious charities. I have a friend who works at a homeless shelter and he has similar feelings as me to religion.
 10/06/2005 07:39:12 PM · #218
Saj
Given up waiting for you to answer. Must go to bed - work tomorrow. Hope I will find a reply in the morning.

Goodnight
P
 10/06/2005 07:47:47 PM · #219
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And Mohandas Gandhi;
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”


Another quote I like. So as long as Jesus the Christ had unorganized followers you'd be okay with the spirituality he presented?

I believe that christianity is consistently screwed up by the followers of Jesus (myself included)...I don't know whether or not you identify the following of his teachings as "Christianity" but why would that 'organization' bother you so much if they would only do what he taught?

To me, it sounds like it's the failure of humans that bugs you...it bugs me too, everyday. More than most know.


The problem seems to be that whenever humans try to organize a religion they F it up real good. I have not read the bible (which one day I do plan to do) but I have read the Jefferson Bible, the version Thomas Jefferson wrote about what he interpreted Jesus’ message as. And it is very good, some great messages. Of course Thomas Jefferson was no Christian, he was a Deist.

The quote above rings true because people can't seem to practice what he preached. Either they can't or they don't but if they did (considering the majority of Americans are Christians), we would be a hell of alot better off. And we definitely would not have seen the poverty and suffering we saw in the aftermath of Katrina. The “every man for himself” mentality of American capitalism doesn’t jive with the message of love, kindness and forgiveness.

Religion in practical use seems more a tool used for hate, judgment and discrimination, the opposite of what most of its writers wanted.
10/06/2005 07:47:52 PM · #220
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by karmat:
Mad, I too, to some extent/degree, agree with what you've written (excepte the conclusion). However, I also believe that you could substitute "human secularism" for religion, and have the same arguement.

I do not think the bad outweighs the good. I think the bad gets more attention than the good, because it is hard to argue (and not very much fun) about the good stuff that happens.

a very few examples from the more "not-extreme" Christians
-- hospitals set up for the poor that can't afford health care
-- food given (as well as the "tools" for growing crops and food) for others
-- shelters/housing set up for those without

Nah, let's argue all day about those extreme cases that make their whole freakin' "group" look bad. ;)


"human secularism" is not a dogmatic human creation based off things that cannot be proven and do not exist to be tested. And I definitely don't agree that it can be substituted for religion in my words.


On this we will just have to agree to disagree. I do believe that SH can be dogmatic, and based on things that cannot be proven or don't exist to be tested. And, IMO, SH is a form of religion.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
And as far as those things religious charities do, they are not exclusive to religious charities. I have a friend who works at a homeless shelter and he has similar feelings as me to religion.


I never claimed exclusivity for Christian groups. AS SUCH religion cannot also be given exclusivity for that which is bad or unhealthy in society.

As far as "organized religion" goes -- It exists because we as humans seem to want to be around others who believe like us. Many of us do not want to have lonely existences in our own vacuums, and we have a tendency to group with those that believe like we do. Again, it is not just a religious thing. I hang out at dpc, not because of the spiritual upliftings I get (haha), but because there is a common thread of photography here. So, I guess "organized" anything would have to be bad, at times.

10/06/2005 08:02:10 PM · #221
Originally posted by karmat:

On this we will just have to agree to disagree. I do believe that SH can be dogmatic, and based on things that cannot be proven or don't exist to be tested. And, IMO, SH is a form of religion.


How so? I was unaware of a "seclurarist church".

Originally posted by karmat:
As far as "organized religion" goes -- It exists because we as humans seem to want to be around others who believe like us. Many of us do not want to have lonely existences in our own vacuums, and we have a tendency to group with those that believe like we do. Again, it is not just a religious thing. I hang out at dpc, not because of the spiritual upliftings I get (haha), but because there is a common thread of photography here. So, I guess "organized" anything would have to be bad, at times.


Good points and I agree that humans definitely like being around like minded people. However, I think the human experiment over the last however many thousands of years has shown that when humans organize religion, the results are destructively negative.

Think of where the world is most unstable today. Mostly highly religious areas.

I guess my bottom line is that yes, religion can have plenty of good things and benefits. But the negatives (prejudice, hate, genocide, suffering) far outweigh the few religious based homeless shelters and charities and that comforting feeling I understand many Christians have with the beliefs.

I believe that given our technological abilities today, 2005, were it not for religion and anti-science thinking based off religious beliefs (and post WW2 US foreign policy, but that’s another discussion... or is it?), the world and humanity would be far closer to a more just and happiness filled existence.
10/06/2005 09:02:03 PM · #222
I am sorry to intervene with the premise of this thread. Being a logistic freak, I thoroughly examine the main arteries to determine if further veins require closer examination. This study is so flawed that to believe in it would mean to reach some of the following conclusions.

First, that true enlightenment is only the property of the secularist.
Second, that the secularist know better because they have a true understanding of the facts that really matter.
Third, that to believe in a force greater than man is to shackle the mind and entrap it in worthless folly.
Fourth, that a better world will come to being if all religion is wiped from the face of the earth.
And Fifth: that a true blue state requires virtually no policing because all subjects have a superior grasp of their responsibility to its society.

The same study can be done by using different criteria. For example, white collar crime is the property of the Blue States. Also consider the size of police departments. The biggest exist in NYC which happens to be as Blue as the same state. However, it makes little sense to find general patters to support an opinion. If you look deep enough you will find it, but you are forcing a fact to explain your suspicion or to give some credence to your theory.

I do not think that anyone here is so naive to believe that they have found the light in the tunnel. Again, these are topics that deal with global ideas and as such they are not so easily grasped.

Look, you have those that believe and those that don't. The two appear to be like oil and water. Who is right? I do not think any of us have enough knowledge or wisdom to determine it. Those that are biased will risk going on a limb by presenting superflous arguments that are as vapid as the air. Think before you speak of big issues because there are wheels withing wheels and if you follow through you will find many forks on the logical road. There is no black and there is no white.
 10/06/2005 10:34:40 PM · #223
I'm going to try to remember my biology lessons and go through the stages of fetal development, because this is the only rational method from which to approach the "life" issue, in my opinion.

So, conception occurs in the fallopian tube, and if memory serves it takes some time (5 days?) before the embryo (not sure it's called an embryo at this stage) arrives in the uterus. It's 2 weeks approx. before the embryo is implanted into the uterus. There are no organs, no skin, no brain, no heart. There isn't even a placenta yet. I'm not sure about its size, but I do know that a fetus is only about an inch long at 2 months, so at this early stage it's considerably smaller than that.

So I'll stop here and ask anyone who cares to answer: If I abort a pregnancy at this stage, have I "murdered" a person?

Message edited by author 2005-10-06 22:37:29.
 10/06/2005 10:46:14 PM · #224
Medically, death is determined when the brain has stopped functioning, not when breath or heart cease. The reverse can be applied to the embryo/fetus...that is, maybe we need to determine (and agree) that life can be thought to begin when a nervous system has been fully developed.
 10/06/2005 11:03:48 PM · #225
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Being a logistic freak, I thoroughly examine the main arteries to determine if further veins require closer examination. This study is so flawed that to believe in it would mean to reach some of the following conclusions.

....

Look, you have those that believe and those that don't. The two appear to be like oil and water. Who is right? I do not think any of us have enough knowledge or wisdom to determine it.


I can agree with this, including the fact of my guilt before it. Likewise....thank you for a fair balanced point of view.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:05:29 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 03:05:29 PM EDT.