| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
21 May 2007 06:53:08 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "rhymecon" <bob4@...> wrote:
--- In HRSepCnS@yahoogroups.com, "buckeyeelo" <buckeyeelo@> wrote:
From: t1gercat
Subject: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state
Date: 8 May 2007 06:25:29 -0700
On May 8, 8:59 am, buckeye-...@ wrote:
RhymeCon," the "Rhyming Conservative
STAMP OUT SEPARATION - of church and
I'd best start with my conclusions or nobody will read any
farther.
Opponents of the slogan "Separation of Church and State" are not
necessarilly theocrats-in-the-making; they may accept implicitly
the
First Amendment's governmental non-establishment of religion but
be
concerned about the slogan's silencing of political debate by
churches. Which it says. The word "Separation" is meaningless
unless
the slogan, in preventing the government from influencing
religion,
doesn't also prevent religion from influencing government. And
the
man-on-the-street, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court, has
interpreted
it to say just that. But the Constitution just plain doesn't.
Arrant nonsense.
What is arrant nonsense? That the man-on-the-street thinks it says
that or that it just plain doesn't?
You don't speak for the man on the street.
Your website likes your posts here only contain your opinions.
You have demonstrated that you have a agenda, which hardly makes your
opinions objective.
Now, if you really wanted to know what the person who posted "arrant
nonsense" meant you would have to ask him.
My opinion of what he was talking about is, he felt you didn't know
waht you were talking about. Does that help you any?
Chuches and church people are perfectly free to say
whatever they want about Government. Their constitutional rights
are
fully assured.
I agree completely. Churches can talk about politics (or probably
run a United Methodist candidate for president if they were silly
enough to, and I'm a United Methodist). Students can say grace in
the school cafeteria. A lot of the things conservative Christians
fear are just not true. But there might be far less controversy
about religion-state relations if people just discuss what the
Constitution says about non-establishment rather than
the "Separation" slogan which is why I'm opposed to the slogan.
Do you equally oppose all the "slogans" soundbites, headlines etc
that the RRR use?
In your "non objective" (wink wink) opinion what does the Constituion
say about the Establishment Clause?
Here is the entire bulk of what the Constitution says on the topic of
religion, government (church & state)
Article II
.. . . I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of
my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."
Article VI
.. . . but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification
to any office or public trust under the United States.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
************************************
That is it, that is what the Constitution says on the topic, and ALL
IT SAYS ON THE TOPIC.
So, kindly discuss that with us.
And my reason for bringing the U.S. Supreme Court into it? When
Assoc. Justice Hugo Black wrote his infamous 1947 opinion in the
Everson case he not only led people into believing those words from
a Jeffersonion letter were actually in the Constitution (a world of
verbal fistfights right there) but he reinforced it by saying "No
religious organization can, openly or secretly, participate in the
affairs of a state or the Federal Government or vice versa." Well,
he actually said it the other way around but his words "vice versa"
mean it's equally true either way. And political participation
surely includes political speech and press and petitioning of
government.
There you go again making those same unsubstantiated claims
This got your posting staus changed to moderated before.
You were told to prove your claims or atop makign them. You wouldn't
do it, because you can't do it. You can't do it because it is pure
*****.
Now, prove your claims with facts, with documentation or stop making them.
Those are your options.
You violate that again and you will be booted and banned from this groups
I suggest you go back to your website and make up more lies to tell
people
You have no business being here.
You are not here to actually engage in worthwhile discussions. You're
here to push your agenda, promote your website, etc.
The ending is going to be one of two ways.
(1) you get bored because you can't play your games etc here
(2) I get bored seeing your crap and boot you
It is only a matter of time.
You were given a series of things that you had said in the past but
had never gone beyond you sdaying they were ture.
I told you to put up ort shut up.
You have yet to put up but you are back to claiming them again.
Remember this:
Your unsubstantiated claim is noted.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordinary or extraordinary claims require ordinary or extraordinary
proof.
If you're going to claim something and especially something outlandish
you're going to need some pretty extraordinary and/or irrefutable proof to
back up such a claim. "Where's the beef?" Where's the ordinary or
extraordinary proof for their ordinary or extraordinary claims? If one is
not responding with ordinary or extraordinary, *factual* proof, then the
claim is not worth considering
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ as Homer@nospam said]
Why is asking for "proof" considered truculence? Do you consider it
truculence for a judge to ask for evidence in a trial. Would you rather
that
people just testified that they believed in the guilt of the suspect?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[as Gray Shockley said:]
Your "opinion" is not an adequate citation.
You forgot your citations.
Or, are your opinions more valid than facts?
You do realize, do you not?, that opinion without substantiation is just
propaganda for those without critical thinking abilities and originate
with
those who are attempting to manipulate rather than those who are
attempting
to clarify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\
---
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
But people are so jingoistic that they think in terms of slogans. In
this site for instance all I've really said is that I'm opposed to
the slogan, not the non-establishment clause, and I've been called a
theocrat and an R.R.R. and a religious fanatic.
LIAR!!!!!!!
You have identified yourself by the name of your website, your attacks
on AU, your defense of Dobson, Ann Coulter, and the propaganda that
you have tried to dispense here.
You try to hide some of it under some sort of mumbo jumbo about a
slogan but the slogan is unimportant. The slogan ins't law, never has
been
You ***** regarding the RULE OF LAW given in Everson identifies
you. As the saying goes , if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck,
quacks like a duck, smells like a duck, it is a duck.
BTW, I have personally addressed your Everson propaganda at least
twice with facts, documentation, commentary and opinions from
respected scholars who are experts on the topic and you have ignored
that only to appear here once more peddlign your false unsubstantiated
propaganda.
You are luckey you aren't booted this very second, but I am not
finished with giving you enough rope to hang yourself yet.
You are doing a very good job os proving my comments about waht you
are about to be very true.
In time you will even have convinced your one defender here that I was
justified in my actions regarding you.
I agree that the First Amendment doesn't even suggest that the
government shall place any restrictions on what churches do. Of
course they can't rape, pillage, and plunder and they can't block
required fire exits or dump roof drainage into the sanitary sewer
(in many localities) but they can do everything a labor union or
Kroger's can do and if the amendment says they can't then the
Continental Congress that approved the First Amendment violated the
First Amendment.
WHAT?????????
THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS APPROVED THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Did you ever study American History?
Thank you for once again demonstrating to all who bothers to read this
that you don't know waht you are talking about.
You do a far better job than I do of demonstratign that.
As I said, to give you enough rope to hang yourself.
BTW, there is no separation of kroger and state or Labor Unions and
government but there is a separation of church and state, so your
argument is meaningless.
The fact that a chuch which is openly political
forfeits its tax benefit is utterly irrelevant to any issues
involving
the Bill of Rights.
I agree, and said so in my much-maligned home page, and the proof is
that the tax-exempt rules apply to all 501(c)(3) organizations,
religious and otherwise. BTW the malignment is kind of funny.
I'll snip the rest of your letter, although I happen to disagree,
since it's on a slightly different subject. And I appreciate your
comments.
Duh, they weren't my comments. They were the comments of others who
happened to reply to the post I posted here. The same post I posted in
another forum.
They were unsolicited commnets regarding that post I posted showing
your website.
I told you you would not exactly like them.
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
21 May 2007 09:53:50 PM |
|
|
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?" Would it be OK if President Romney
decides to strong arm Congress into building a monument to the Mormon
Prophet, Joseph Smith? Would it be OK if Romney were to go on
television every Sunday and from the Oval Office of the White House,
read from the Book of Mormon? Would it be OK if a Moslem Congressman
(there is one) proposed a law requiring the call to prayer 5 times per
day in every public school classroom? Would it be OK if a Catholic
Cardinal, in full vestments, read religious instructions from the Pope
from the halls of Congress? Would it be OK if Christian Snake
Handlers, people with the Holy Barks and people who speak in "Tongues"
had their services broadcast into every classroom for ten minutes
every morning? Would it be OK to tax Lutherans, Jews, Catholics and
whatever in order to fund religious education at Bob Jones, Liberty,
Brigham Young, Oral Roberts and Maharishi Universities? Tell us where
you'd draw the line, or shut the hell up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
21 May 2007 10:23:14 PM |
|
|
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?"
At the Constitution would be nice. It generally says that Congress shall
make no law promoting one religion over another. Nothing about incidentally
supporting religious symbols on public land; that's not "promotion", and it
doesn't hurt other religions.
In my county, a government-owned park has a huge beautiful white concrete
cross, erected as a war memorial. You can see it for miles. And "leftist"
lawyers keep trying to get court orders to take it down. Naturally, opposing
lawyers keep getting it "stays of execution", complete with appeals and
such. The cross apparently has more legal rights than factually innocent
humans had in Bush's Texas.
This bogus situation is wasting court time, which might have more pressing
issues to consider. And it is certainly wasting TV news airtime, which
_definitely_ has more pressing issues to consider. Such as whether NeoCons
tricked Congress into promoting a war of Christian zealotry against other
religions in the Middle East.
Someone more paranoid and suspicious than me might think the real players
trying to bring the cross down include more than these "leftist" lawyers.
Maybe - just maaaybe - politicians are manipulating them, to put more "wedge
topics" into the news during elections and debates.
Leave the fucking cross alone, and those of you who claim respect its
religious symbology might do better to actually follow its message!
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 08:13:37 AM |
|
|
"Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?"
At the Constitution would be nice. It generally says that Congress shall
make no law promoting one religion over another. Nothing about incidentally
supporting religious symbols on public land; that's not "promotion",
Yes, it is.
1) Allowing the symbol of one particular religion and not others
constitutes implicit public endorsement of the one. For some reason
THEY are getting something that the other religions aren't. Thus the
government favors them.
2) Assuming that this symbol means something to practitioners of the
religion, members of that religion get the advantage of having that
symbol, and the special use of the land that it is on, for no extra
cost, whereas any other religion that wants a comparable symbol has to
find comparable land, pay for it, get necessary zoning clearances, and
pay for their own symbol.
3) If I am a member of a different religion, my tax money is being
used to support a religious belief that I do not hold, but it is NOT
being used to support my religious belief.
and it doesn't hurt other religions.
The use of land has monetary value. So does the cost of the symbol,
and the cost of its maintenance. Another religion therefore suffers a
fiscal lost equal to the funds that it must come up with to match the
value of the other religion's symbol, land use, and maintenance, as
well as the loss of income from its supporters having had to pay tax
money to support the other religion.
This totally excludes any spiritual or other nontangible costs.
In my county, a government-owned park has a huge beautiful white concrete
cross, erected as a war memorial.
Perhaps a cross is not so beautiful to members of the Jewish religion
or the Moslem religion. Indeed it might be as ugly to them, as most
Americans would find a large black swastika erected as a war memorial
and visible for miles would be.
You can see it for miles.
Thereby offending non-Christians for miles, not to mention insulting
every non-Christian who fought for our side in that war who does not
have a comparable monument.
And "leftist" lawyers keep trying to get court orders to take it down.
Nothing "leftist" about it. It's called RESPECT for others.
Naturally, opposing
lawyers keep getting it "stays of execution", complete with appeals and
such. The cross apparently has more legal rights than factually innocent
humans had in Bush's Texas.
This bogus situation is wasting court time, which might have more pressing
issues to consider.
Who are YOU do decide that someone else's issue isn't "pressing"?
Due process is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law. If you are
concerned about speed of judgement, we should pay for more judges.
You apparently think symbols are unimportant. Others think
differently, and given the cost of those lawyers fighting those legal
battles, the principles involved are indeed "pressing issues" to those
paying the legal fees. (The effectiveness of these issues in
mobilizing voters, shows that a goodly number of voters consider them
"pressing" as well).
And it is certainly wasting TV news airtime, which
_definitely_ has more pressing issues to consider.
The media are in business to make money. If that issue makes it more
money, then it is to them the most "pressing" issue, even if you think
it unimportant.
I'm not so sure the fundamental law of our land and following the rule
of law AREN'T the "pressing" issue of our time. That is, after all,
why we opposed those of the swastika and the hammer-and-sickle, two
symbols that *most* Americans would find offensive to see dominating
their skylines.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 02:29:16 PM |
|
|
This bogus situation is wasting court time, which might have more pressing
issues to consider.
Who are YOU do decide that someone else's issue isn't "pressing"?
Oh, okay. it's not a wedge topic. I stand corrected.
--
Phlip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 11:20:01 AM |
|
|
This bogus situation is wasting court time, which might have more pressing
issues to consider.
Who are YOU do decide that someone else's issue isn't "pressing"?
Oh, okay. it's not a wedge topic. I stand corrected.
Two liberals can discuss it wisely, without invective.
--
Phlip
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 09:09:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:13:37 -0400, Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
You apparently think symbols are unimportant.
He apparently thinks they're VERY important - as long as no one takes
HIS symbol down. I wonder how he'd feel about paying, through taxes,
for, say, a large Jewish star in that park, with no equivalent
Christian symbol anywhere to be seen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
23 May 2007 10:40:18 AM |
|
|
He apparently thinks they're VERY important - as long as no one takes
HIS symbol down.
I never once said it was "my" symbol. Practice some reading-
comprehension skills, huh?
I wonder how he'd feel about paying, through taxes,
Ooooh taxes taxes taxes! Our official state religion is the Unholy
Worship of Mammon!
I don't mind sending most of my taxes directly to Al-Qaeda (in their
new training camp formerly called Iraq, formerly called Babylon), but
I DO mind my tax money going to our local Sikh's ceremonial swords,
right?
(My writing comprehension skills suck, huh?;)
--
Phlip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
23 May 2007 11:32:45 AM |
|
|
Phlip <phlip2005@gmail.com> wrote:
He apparently thinks they're VERY important - as long as no one takes
HIS symbol down.
I never once said it was "my" symbol. Practice some reading-
comprehension skills, huh?
I wonder how he'd feel about paying, through taxes,
Ooooh taxes taxes taxes! Our official state religion is the Unholy
Worship of Mammon!
No. Our unofficial non-state ideology is Mine! Mine! Mine! and our
unofficial non-state philosophy is Me! Me! Me!. And our unofficial
national slogan is "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!"
But none of these is a religion.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "t1gercat" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 11:09:53 PM |
|
|
On May 21, 11:23 pm, "Phlip" <phlip...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?"
At the Constitution would be nice. It generally says that Congress shall
make no law promoting one religion over another. Nothing about incidentally
supporting religious symbols on public land; that's not "promotion", and it
doesn't hurt other religions.
No, the Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion." It means (1) no official federal
religion(s) can be "established," i.e., licensed, (2) no
"establishment" of religion by any State can be "respected," i.e.,
recognized, and (3) no law can be passed that elevates one religion
above the others, i.e., since that would amount to an "establishment,"
i.e., no money can be allocated to a religion, no special act can be
passed for a religion, God(s) and government do not mix. If the
Constitution were strictly followed, there would be no Chaplain in
Congress or the Senate, money would lack the motto, "In God We Trust,"
there would be no Federal or State Christmas tree, no Chaplains in the
Armed Services, etc. Madison, for one, would be pleased were that the
case.
As for incidentally supporting figures on public land, you, I take it,
like the cross. The cross was a horrid instrument of torture, but you
like it. Suppose my friends and I belonged to a fertility cult and
like the Phallus. Would you think it smart and proper for the county
to erect a giant, white Phallus? Why is a Phallus worse than a
instrument of torture and death? Why shouldn't your taxes support our
fancy?
Denying the separation of Church and State is a classic slippery
slope. Once the government gets involved with building churches,
erecting symbols, holding prayer sessions, whatever, the wall starts
to crack. After a while, the people who considered the government's
influence to be benign and the incident to be of minimal danger to
religious freedom find themselves on the ramparts trying to retain
their rights against an onslaught from fundies and nutcases. Having
the wall of separation hurts NO ONE. Tearing it down will eventually
hurt EVERY ONE.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phlip" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 11:37:03 PM |
|
|
As for incidentally supporting figures on public land, you, I take it,
like the cross.
I would like to express my real deep and sincere apologies for allowing you
to categorize me so easily. Uh, Unitarian Universalist. No cross, just a
bronze oil lamp. And (guess what!), we can stick them anywhere, and nobody
notices! Hehehe!
I don't have to like the Mount Soledad Cross to dislike people abusing it as
a Wedge Topic. And, esthetically & spiritually, I /do/ like it. It's the
grave marker for a war memorial for soldiers who were probably Christian; if
so, they deserve it too.
Today, on the fascist radio channel, they were bitching about the cross, and
at the exact same time on the progressive channel, they were bitching about
the "embassy" fortress we are building in Iraq. It's large enough to qualify
as an "annexation". Putting a big bomb-proof cross over it would just be the
icing on the cake!
The cross was a horrid instrument of torture, but you
like it.
Actually, Roman crucifixions were just on a board hung from a tree.
Suppose my friends and I belonged to a fertility cult and
like the Phallus. Would you think it smart and proper for the county
to erect a giant, white Phallus? Why is a Phallus worse than a
instrument of torture and death? Why shouldn't your taxes support our
fancy?
Are you attempting to tease a televangelist here?
That's the problem whenever I write a careful, detailed, 5-paragraph post,
and someone guesses my position before the first sentence, then responds
without reading.
Denying the separation of Church and State is a classic slippery
slope.
And we can slide it _after_ we have taken care of more important issues.
There are idiots out there who will vote _for_ a fascist dictator who wants
to send our troops to die for oil (without even getting any), because he
_claims_ to want to defend the cross. He's probably the one backing the
efforts to fight it in court. Connect the dots!
Once the government gets involved with building churches,
erecting symbols, holding prayer sessions, whatever, the wall starts
to crack. After a while, the people who considered the government's
influence to be benign and the incident to be of minimal danger to
religious freedom find themselves on the ramparts trying to retain
their rights against an onslaught from fundies and nutcases. Having
the wall of separation hurts NO ONE. Tearing it down will eventually
hurt EVERY ONE.
We are glad we let you get that off your chest.
--
Phlip
http://flea.sourceforge.net/PiglegToo_1.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
22 May 2007 09:05:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 May 2007 20:23:14 -0700, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?"
At the Constitution would be nice. It generally says that Congress shall
make no law promoting one religion over another.
It actually (and in very simple English) says that Congress shall pass
no law having anything to do with religion at all. Period.
"no law respecting" means "no law about", not "no law that shows
respect for".
"the establishment of religion" refers to the institution we call
religion, not about "establishing" a religion.
"It ain't rocket science."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Stamp out separation - of church and state |
23 May 2007 01:08:03 AM |
|
|
[snips]
On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:53:50 -0700, t1gercat wrote:
Good rebuttal. I always get a laugh out of people who argue that the
Constitution says nothing about "Separation of Chuch and State." The
one question I've repeatedly put to them and they never answer is
"Where do you draw the line?" Would it be OK if President Romney
decides to strong arm Congress into building a monument to the Mormon
Prophet, Joseph Smith?
Why stop there? We could bring in the Wiccans... latter-day Druids...
Santerians... Satanists... hey, they're all religions, right?
How about in schools, we perform a rite from a different religion every
day? Hmm... in courts we'll sacrifice a chicken and have the witness
douse themselves with the blood instead of the traditional placing their
hand on the Bible... we'll erect (pardon the pun) giant phalluses in our
top governmental buildings to honor those religions where sexuality is
seen as blessed rather than sinful.
Sounds good to me. Of course, the fundies will go ballistic. Still,
they're the ones who always want religion snuck in the back door; we're
just trying to be helpful, give them exactly what they want.
--
Be careful what you wish for; you may just get it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
