|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2008 : 12:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Dave, thanks for the welcome. 'preciated.
| Call it the Movement to End Hypocrisy. That way, we need no discrimination. |
Yeah, but who wants to be the leader? It takes years of hard work and dedication, and when you finally overcome, some other dick takes over as leader and you become marginalized -- a one line mention in a history book or a footnote at wikpedia.
Any volunteers? |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2008 : 12:23:16 [Permalink]
|
Long time, no see, Tim! Where've you been keeping your bad self?
I seem to recall calling this something of a tempest in a teapot some days ago: "the tempest will return to it's teapot," or something to that effect. Well, I was wrong; this thing has become so much fun for all concerned (except for the Krolls) that it is unlikely to diminish soon.
And, as stated, the Law of Unintended Consequences has put this into national attention, at least in a minor way, and that might get some otherwise complacent people to thinking, about one side of it or the other. So, as we all like people who think, let's keep it going for their benefit.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2008 : 12:37:40 [Permalink]
|
Filthy, thanks, too. I've been busy with continuing education. I finally got me a degree, and now I'm unemployed...Go figure.
Posted by Kil:| You would think that with all of the big brains in our community, someone could come up with something that would make the Myers thing look like the sideshow that it really is. |
You're right! Someone has to be willing to martyr themselves, and it seems guys like us are too old and too unwilling to give up our never quite reached American dream. Or at least, we don't have the stomach to debate an idiot like Hannity or his more disreputable buddy Bill O' over at FOX.
Seriously, most people in our situation in life aren't willing to expose our families to terrorist watch lists, or even volunteer to be martyred. Or, maybe we don't believe that we have the support. Possibly though, we just don't care that much. That's my excuse, and the fact that I'm not good on TV. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
| Edited by - Tim on 07/23/2008 12:41:06 |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 07:02:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
I really intended the sarcastic rant to be a general statement of how I feel about passivity and political correctness, and it should at very least have been directed to you and Chaloobi; or better, simply not addressed.
|
It's not about PC or passivity, it's about choosing appopriate action to further a goal and avoid underming one's own principles in the process.
The problem I see with the Faithful is they want to see personal freedom, knowledge and research many of us could benefit from limited based on mythological beliefs. They are very concerned about what goes on in other people's bedrooms, laboratories and classrooms and believe it's their duty to legislate their religous concerns on the rest of us. The problem is not with the beliefs themselves but with their intent to have a nation that abides by them.
I believe most everthing religous organizations do in the privacy of their property is their business and not mine. I may not approve, but nobody says I have to. As long as they keep to themselves, I don't, and shouldn't, care. And it's not about out of sight out of mind, it's an important principle to live by. People should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want so long as they don't unreasonably harm their neighbors. Period. That's my utopia, that's the approach I think government should take on every social issue.
The way this proposed act of sneaking a consecrated eucharist out of a Catholic mass and publicly desecrating it should be evaluated is by what it is intended to address, how that will work, and what the act means in the face of principle.
And I fail to see said desecration will do anything but show the guy doing it for the great big ass hole he is and provoke outrage from the nutjobs and sympathy for their outrage from the moderates. It won't address the constant attacks on basic science, it won't do anything for gays or women pregnant by incest, it won't fight the good fight against calls for prayer in school, and it won't get dim wits like President Bush to let Federal dollars support stem cell research. Indeed it's as likely to envigorate these efforts as anything else.
But it will give weight to the heretofor unsubstantiated accusation that the left, especially the secular left, want to destroy religion and force their atheism on everyone else. Politicians will now have an actual act of extremism to point to when they make campaign speeches defending the right to worship in peace. And it will drain credibility from arguments for the principle that people should be free to do as they choose in privacy because this act will have attacked that principle.
I firmly believe when you fight extremists with extremism you don't beat them, you join them; you justify them; you empower them. Go ahead and bang your head on your desk some more Dave and label me with another slur. Those are great tactics in winning forum arguments but they won't make this stupid idea any better. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 08:22:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
And it will drain credibility from arguments for the principle that people should be free to do as they choose in privacy because this act will have attacked that principle. |
How, precisely, did PZ's act do anything to attack the principle that people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes?| I firmly believe when you fight extremists with extremism you don't beat them, you join them; you justify them; you empower them. |
Doing what you will with some religious symbols in one's own home is extremism, now? Mocking ridiculous ideas is extreme?!| Go ahead and bang your head on your desk some more Dave and label me with another slur. Those are great tactics in winning forum arguments but they won't make this stupid idea any better. |
I've expressed my frustration with you in a few different ways. Based upon what appear to be false premises, you call PZ's act a "stupid idea." I remain unconvinced. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 09:19:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by chaloobi
And it will drain credibility from arguments for the principle that people should be free to do as they choose in privacy because this act will have attacked that principle. |
How, precisely, did PZ's act do anything to attack the principle that people should be able to do what they want in the privacy of their own homes? |
Sneeking a religion's most sacred item out of a private service and publicly desecrating it in order to ridicule the practice may not strictly be a prohibition of the practice, but it's a far cry from "people should be allowed to do what they want in privacy." Where's the privacy in practicing your beliefs under the constant fear someone will sneek your most sacred item out and desecrate it to publicly mock you? And isn't the intent to undermine the legitimacy of the practice, take away it's potency from believers, show them the nonsense that it is, and thereby destroy it altogether? Technically you're not taking away anyone's freedom, but clearly that's the spirit and the hoped for effect of the act. | I firmly believe when you fight extremists with extremism you don't beat them, you join them; you justify them; you empower them. |
Doing what you will with some religious symbols in one's own home is extremism, now? Mocking ridiculous ideas is extreme?! |
Do what you want in your own home with religous symbols. Like I said, I don't care. But that's not what's being advocated here; the intent is to publicly desecrate sacred practices with the intent of doing harm to the institution and all the faithful. Nor is this just mocking a ridiculous idea. Here we are talking about desecration of the most sacred item in Catholic Christianity; requiring someone to physically enter their private practice and sneek this item out. It's the most extreme act you could take to offend and humiliate Catholics short of something illegal. | Go ahead and bang your head on your desk some more Dave and label me with another slur. Those are great tactics in winning forum arguments but they won't make this stupid idea any better. |
I've expressed my frustration with you in a few different ways. Based upon what appear to be false premises, you call PZ's act a "stupid idea." I remain unconvinced.
|
Yes you have. And since the purported positive and negetive effects of public eucharist desecration are both entirely speculative, and the principles one follows are personal and subjective, I'm not surprised you remain unconvinced. I feel some frustration of my own at the inability of you and others to see what a bad idea this is, but I extend the courtesy not to express it, as I recognize my frustrations are my own. Maybe thats another principle we don't share. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 11:17:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chaloobi
Sneeking a religion's most sacred item out of a private service and publicly desecrating it in order to ridicule the practice may not strictly be a prohibition of the practice, but it's a far cry from "people should be allowed to do what they want in privacy." Where's the privacy in practicing your beliefs under the constant fear someone will sneek your most sacred item out and desecrate it to publicly mock you? And isn't the intent to undermine the legitimacy of the practice, take away it's potency from believers, show them the nonsense that it is, and thereby destroy it altogether? Technically you're not taking away anyone's freedom, but clearly that's the spirit and the hoped for effect of the act. |
Good grief. There's no evidence that anybody snuck anywhere, much less into a Mass where the public is welcome. Catholics aren't Mormons. When every non-Catholic and all Catholics who aren't in a state of grace are shooed out of the pews and into the parking lot during Communion, then you can make the claim that the practice is private.
Besides, Catholics have been under that "constant fear" for as long as the practice has occured. They used to accuse Jews of defiling the Host, and then burn 'em. There was never any reason for that fear to abate, because the Catholics never changed their practices in order to make it difficult for someone to "sneak" in. The fact that they will hand out consecrated wafers to anyone who presents himself at Communion is a security hole that's been willfully left open by the Catholics themselves. Instead of actually trying to close the hole (for example, everyone could get a hand stamp after confession), they freak out at the least transgression of their unwritten rules. If any Catholic had felt that fear abate, it was due to their own complacency, not because the threat (real and imagined) had ever lessened.
The "spirit and the hoped for effect of the act" is nothing more than protest. It is unrealistic to think that it will do so little as to get people to stop being hypocritical so loudly and publicly (not in private), which is what prompted the act in the first place. It has nothing to do with getting people to stop practicing their religion in private. PZ's quite-public statements (in Expelled, for example) are that people should treat their religion like any other hobby, not that people need to stop being religious.
Should people stop being religious? I think so. I think it would be a great boon to the world if religion were to vanish. The idea that PZ's protest is aimed towards that goal is silly. I think we need to build upon this one act of protest with more, to break the backbone of support of the would-be theocrats. But even that's a far cry from eliminating religion.| Do what you want in your own home with religous symbols. Like I said, I don't care. But that's not what's being advocated here; the intent is to publicly desecrate sacred practices with the intent of doing harm to the institution and all the faithful. Nor is this just mocking a ridiculous idea. Here we are talking about desecration of the most sacred item in Catholic Christianity; requiring someone to physically enter their private practice and sneek this item out. It's the most extreme act you could take to offend and humiliate Catholics short of something illegal. |
You're wrong about the intent, and you're still wrong about the sneaking. PZ's act will hurt none of the faithful who don't choose to be hurt by it, and may make the practice of Communion be taken more seriously by the Catholics. The intent was to protest the hypocrites. And by your account, this would be a mockery of the most ridiculous idea in Catholic Christianity. While we haven't yet seen just how it was mocked, my bet would be that it's going to be pretty tame compared to the ludicrousness of the idea itself (doing nothing more than throwing them in the trash would have been perfect in its simplicity).| And since the purported positive and negetive effects of public eucharist desecration are both entirely speculative, and the principles one follows are personal and subjective, I'm not surprised you remain unconvinced. I feel some frustration of my own at the inability of you and others to see what a bad idea this is, but I extend the courtesy not to express it, as I recognize my frustrations are my own. Maybe thats another principle we don't share. |
When you object to the idea with hyperbole ("sneaking," "private" and "intent of doing harm"), I cannot take your objections seriously. When you object to my statements (in the other thread) with a huge strawman stuffed with nonsense, I could see no better response than *headdesk*. If you have an argument to make which is based upon premises with which we can all agree, please do so. I have no problem with being wrong, so long as I'm wrong for the right reasons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 12:53:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
When you object to the idea with hyperbole ("sneaking," "private" and "intent of doing harm"), I cannot take your objections seriously. When you object to my statements (in the other thread) with a huge strawman stuffed with nonsense, I could see no better response than *headdesk*. If you have an argument to make which is based upon premises with which we can all agree, please do so. I have no problem with being wrong, so long as I'm wrong for the right reasons.
|
Oh come on, none of that's hyperbole.
How else do you get a consecrated piece of bread if you don't represent yourself as an actual indoctrinated Catholic? If they know you're not a Catholic and you intend to take the bread out of the church instead of eat it, then they won't give it to you. Even if you are a Catholic, if your mission is to secret the host out of the building rather than eat it, you're misrepresenting yourself. What else do you call it?
Churches are open to the public but they are private property. And the assumption behind open to the public is that any non-initiated who go in there are there out of curiosity, not to do some desecrating.
And intent of doing harm? You are seriously saying PZ doesn't want to harm the Catholic church in all this?
And the strawman: | So you guys think desecrating consecrated bread will do the the trick turning public perception against Catholics.... Ok. Good luck. |
What was the point, then? I took it as "Hey everybody, look how stupid these people are behaving in reaction to this desecration I did!" Right or wrong?
Last, there are no premises we can all agree on and you know it. I don't agree with your premises either.
It will be interesting to see how the church et al deals with this now that it's done. Probably they'll claim it wasn't consecrated so it's not an issue and blow it off. I didn't read anywhere that it was consecrated - did he talk about that? He pulled his punch at the last minute - I was expecting him to do something much nastier. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 13:21:29 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Dave, do you have any information on the actual production of the Eucharistic wafers? Such as:
1.Where and how and by whom are they are manufactured and distributed?
2.What is the "recipe" of the ingedients?
3.Is Church supervision involved in their production (a la Rabbinical inpection of Kosher food processing), distribution, and handling and the like?
Any ideas on where to obtain this information? I have googled everything I could think of, wiki is not of much help either. I am looking for specifics.
If you have any information or suggestions, I would appreciate it. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 13:35:51 [Permalink]
|
I agree, although it did add rather a flourish.
This whole thing has had too much of a business made of it and I am as at-fault as anyone. But now that the Host has at last been defiled, the question is will this lunacy finally die it's natural and deserved death? With the likes of Donohue blustering in the background and the more loosely wrapped of the Catholic population listening to him, I doubt it.
At this point, I'd rather defile the Hostess than the Host, but that's just me.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 14:03:59 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi.....
| I believe most everthing religous organizations do in the privacy of their property is their business and not mine. I may not approve, but nobody says I have to. As long as they keep to themselves, I don't, and shouldn't, care. And it's not about out of sight out of mind, it's an important principle to live by. People should be allowed to do more or less whatever they want so long as they don't unreasonably harm their neighbors. Period. That's my utopia, that's the approach I think government should take on every social issue. |
That's a bit like saying "I don't care how many Muslim terrorists build nuclear fission bombs in the privacy of the basements of their own homes or mosques (or countries), as long as no one is hurt in the process of building them"
The attitude doesn't address the future consequences of the activity you sanction as their business, not yours. It rapidly becomes your business if they decide to use the nukes to vaporize your hometown.
In macrocosm, it's the problem Obama will face with repect to Iran. If our fucking idiotically poor intelligence (or the Israeli's) can in fact verify Iranian nuclear weapon development, and extensive diplomatic efforts fail to stop it, preemptive attack becomes mandatory. (Kennedy knew this at the time of the Cuban missle crisis, we were at DEFCOM 1, and he would have sunk the Russian ships, and destoyed the missle sites, and had the strategic Air Command over Moscow, if Kruschev had not backed down.)
Just as many of the Muslims in the world hold insane ideas that are exemplified in some of their insane actions, so do bat-crazy Christians have insane convictions that are symptomatic of their highly dangerous behaviour - such as being instrumental in electing the Bush administration and a Republican Congress!
I don't believe in the principle that I should let a possible latent cancer cell reside at peace in my colon, keeping to itself, doing whatever it wishes to do; as long as I have no symptoms.
Consequently, I am having a colonoscopy next week to discover if that situation exists, and if it does, I sure as hell am going to take drastic action to try and eradicate it!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 07/24/2008 15:26:07 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 16:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave, do you have any information on the actual production of the Eucharistic wafers? Such as:
1.Where and how and by whom are they are manufactured and distributed? |
Buy some today! (Only 2.2 cents each!) Seriously, probably hundreds of companies make wafers. They're distributed by UPS and Fedex. They're made in ovens, using flour and water.| 2.What is the "recipe" of the ingedients? |
They're usually unleavened bread, but from what I've seen, any loaf will do.| 3.Is Church supervision involved in their production (a la Rabbinical inpection of Kosher food processing), distribution, and handling and the like? |
Nope.| Any ideas on where to obtain this information? |
The Bible, probably.| I am looking for specifics. |
Well, there's your problem: there are few specifics. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 18:48:51 [Permalink]
|
Going back for a minute:Originally posted by chaloobi
And I fail to see said desecration will do anything but show the guy doing it for the great big ass hole he is and provoke outrage from the nutjobs and sympathy for their outrage from the moderates. |
Then it won't be enough. It'll have to be bigger. Islamic moderates weren't sympathetic to the 9/11 attackers, they distanced themselves from that massive act of terrorism. We need to outrage the nutjobs so much that the moderates say, "wow, those guys are nutjobs."| It won't address the constant attacks on basic science, it won't do anything for gays or women pregnant by incest, it won't fight the good fight against calls for prayer in school, and it won't get dim wits like President Bush to let Federal dollars support stem cell research. |
As if the culture war can only be fought on a single front at a time. You, chaloobi, don't get to set the priorities, and nobody is stopping you from working on yours.| Indeed it's as likely to envigorate these efforts as anything else. |
Evidence?| But it will give weight to the heretofor unsubstantiated accusation that the left, especially the secular left, want to destroy religion and force their atheism on everyone else. |
You're still not getting it: the nutjobs have already made sure that most people believe that meme. That's why the general population trusts atheists less than they trust Muslims. That's why most people think that atheists shouldn't be allowed to hold office, and why many people think atheists shouldn't be allowed to vote. It doesn't matter if they had no substantiation for it all, atheists were "swiftboated" starting many decades ago.| Politicians will now have an actual act of extremism to point to when they make campaign speeches defending the right to worship in peace. |
PZ didn't disturb anyone's ability or right to worship in peace. Judging from the lack of news reports on brouhahas at churches, there have been zero disturbances and the peace has been maintained.
You next wrote:| Oh come on, none of that's hyperbole. |
My pointing out your hyperbole is hyperbole?| How else do you get a consecrated piece of bread if you don't represent yourself as an actual indoctrinated Catholic? If they know you're not a Catholic and you intend to take the bread out of the church instead of eat it, then they won't give it to you. Even if you are a Catholic, if your mission is to secret the host out of the building rather than eat it, you're misrepresenting yourself. What else do you call it? |
I don't know why you think the Hosts are protected and controlled like casino dice, when they don't ask for ID. All over PZ's comment threads you can find people saying things like, "I don't know what the big deal is, when I was 10 I used to put the wafers in my pocket because I didn't like the way they taste." Ways exist without misrepresentation.
But so what if someone misrepresents him/herself? It's only a disturbance if there's an actual disturbance. I've seen no news on uproars at cathedrals. In fact, the guy who left with the Host that PZ used appeared to have made no disturbance at all (even though his intent was originally to hold the Host hostage - but it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with PZ). How does that prevent or strip away the rights of the Catholics to worship?
Obtaining a Host would require less overt dishonesty than claiming that a 13-year-old child is only 12 so you get the kid's price on a movie ticket, because you don't have to actually state "I'm a Catholic and I'm in a state of grace" when accepting the Host, but you do have to say "one adult and one child, please" when buying tickets. And because a wafer is worth two cents or less, no sane person would even try to take it to small-claims court.| Churches are open to the public but they are private property. And the assumption behind open to the public is that any non-initiated who go in there are there out of curiosity, not to do some desecrating. |
The point was that Communion isn't a secret rite that prying eyes cannot view. It isn't a private act, and judging from the prior Pope's encyclical about it, it's not intended to be private, but a public ceremony encouraging communion among the churches by showing communion among congregants.
Again, if you want to see truly private religious rites for which even I would frown upon intruders, look to the Mormons. One of my cousins is a Mormon, and when she got married her own parents weren't allowed into the service.| And intent of doing harm? You are seriously saying PZ doesn't want to harm the Catholic church in all this? |
Are you seriously suggesting that PZ is so slow-witted that he thinks he can harm the Catholic church by desecrating a single wafer? And even if he could harm the organization, it wouldn't mean that any individual honest Catholics were harmed. If the RCC can survive in light of the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger institutionalized the hiding and protecting of pedophiles, a single sacrilege by an atheist will do nothing to the church.| What was the point, then? I took it as "Hey everybody, look how stupid these people are behaving in reaction to this desecration I did!" Right or wrong? |
Come on. The point was protest against the way the stupid people behaved over an incident in which no desecration was intended.| Last, there are no premises we can all agree on and you know it. |
No, I don't know it.| I don't agree with your premises either. |
Which ones? I don't agree with your premise that obtaining a Host requires an invasion of privacy, for starters. I don't agree that it would mean a diminishment of Catholics' rights, either.| It will be interesting to see how the church et al deals with this now that it's done. |
I doubt the RCC will make any statement about it whatsoever.| Probably they'll claim it wasn't consecrated so it's not an issue and blow it off. |
They can't tell whether it was consecrated or not, which is a small, funny sub-point. Beyond that, at least one Catholic on PZ's blog has argued that abusing unconsecrated wafers is still a sacrilege because preists can't tell the difference and so anything done to a wafer might be being done to a consecrated one.| I didn't read anywhere that it was consecrated - did he talk about that? |
Yes, he did. It was the real deal.| He pulled his punch at the last minute - I was expecting him to do something much nastier. |
He didn't pull his punch: it's just a cracker, so doing truly nasty things to it would give it power that it doesn't deserve. I think he went a little overboard with the nail, but he was inspired by Catholic artwork of Jews piercing the wafers with knives. The banana skin and the coffee grounds were surely just artistic touches. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2008 : 18:59:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.....
Dave, do you have any information on the actual production of the Eucharistic wafers? Such as:
1.Where and how and by whom are they are manufactured and distributed?
2.What is the "recipe" of the ingedients?
3.Is Church supervision involved in their production (a la Rabbinical inpection of Kosher food processing), distribution, and handling and the like?
Any ideas on where to obtain this information? I have googled everything I could think of, wiki is not of much help either. I am looking for specifics.
If you have any information or suggestions, I would appreciate it.
|
You can buy them at www.catholicsupply.com |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The wages of sin
