Ship of Fools: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!

Thread: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030666

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Fox News fuckwit thinks that if the SCOTUS rules favorably on marriage equality, it will perforce make Christians second-class citizens and lead to persecution "like we have never seen it."

Pantywaists like this shithead wouldn't know persecution if it hit them upside the head.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Seriously. Every time a Christian leader compares societal inconvenience to "persecution," it shames the martyrs.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Naw. You can't shame them anymore than you can drown out the sun with a flashlight. It just makes the talker sound like an idiot.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Well, all we have to do is look at totalitarian hellholes like Massachusetts, Iowa, and Washington (state or DC, take your pick) to see this persecution already in action.

Plus there's the object lesson of how every last Roman Catholic in America was hunted down and brutally executed when they wouldn't accept remarriage after divorce.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Also, in Canada after gay marriage was introduced, Christians could only go out after dark, they are so afraid of being set on and beaten. In fact, in some towns, the word 'Christian' is itself banned, and some euphemism has to be found.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

[Paranoid]

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

As a Massachusetts Christian, I can confirm we're ferociously persecuted. Why, just the other day I considered fleeing to the island of Patmos.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Every time gay people get married, a lion is born.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I think the closest San Francisco Christians usually get to persecution is courtesy of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Drag nuns, basically. They do good charitable work...but they also love poking at Christianity--especially around Easter. (E.g., this Easter, there's a Hunky Jesus contest, and an Easter haunted house--said in an article to make a lot of fun of Christianity.)

LGBT folks have many very good reasons to be angry with Christianity, but...
[Eek!]

OTOH, Christianity still thrives here, in all sorts of manifestations. So I don't think legality of same-sex marriage will drive us to turn old civil defense shelters and sub-basements into catacombs, nor to burn our Bibles as an offering to Cthulu! (And FYI: none of that happened when it was previously legal.)

I'm for same-sex marriage, and voted for it in the past. It's possible that Prop. 8--the anti-gay marriage legislation--confused people, which caused them to vote differently than they meant. I.e., voting for Prop. 8 meant you were against SSM; and voting against it meant you were for SSM. I know I found it very confusing, and was very, very careful to make sure how I was really voting.

I heard a few excerpts from the session with the Supremes. Charles(?)Cooper, defending Prop. 8, stumbled a lot, IMHO. He should've anticipated the questions about "what harm would SSM actually do to straight married couples and society". He could have at least prepared *some* sort of answer. But he got all tangled up. To be fair, a lawyer on the other side messed up, too. 'Tis a fearful thing to appear before the Supremes, even though many lawyers dream of it.

I suspect many of the folks who argue that SSM will destroy Marriage (tm) and Society (tm) really just have an "ew...ick" reaction to anything to do with LGBT folks...but they don't want to be labeled as hateful. Would it be better if they were honest??? I don't know.

PS Cooper argued that (straight) marriage is for the protection of children--but waffled when asked whether kids of same-sex parents also need that protection. Argued something to the effect of "well, there are no statistics showing that having same-sex parents marry would make a difference to the kids' well-being".
[Roll Eyes]

[ 27. March 2013, 07:16: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pantywaists like this shithead wouldn't know persecution if it hit them upside the head.

They're not too hot on understanding the concept of discrimination either.

It's only a matter of time before all you breeders are banned from drinking coffee.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I just can't get my head around this "not being able to enforce my moral beliefs on everyone else" = "persecution" thing.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's just seeing a restriction on being able to oppress, as itself an oppression. Thus, if I am a Christian B & B owner, and I am told I cannot bar gays from my business, I am being persecuted. My right to persecute has been infringed.

I suppose a slave-owner could complain that his right to own slaves has been infringed.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

How it usually seems to work involves an epic display of slippery slope fallacy which often jumps to catastrophe so quickly it's almost impossible to follow. Often the most shrill arguments are not even raging about anything that anyone has proposed doing - they're raging about some theoretical next step, and it's impossible to *prove* that this will never happen so they think they've won the argument. I've lost count of the number of times people have complained about religious organisations being allowed to conduct same sex weddings, because it will lead to them being forced to conduct them, and before we know it the jails will all be overflowing with Christian ministers who couldn't go against their conscience. AND THEN WHAT? (This even pops up on SoF a fair amount.) Or what about when people are allowed to marry goats? WHAT'S NEXT?

Certainly that's what seems to be going on with the Starbucks rant. How you can jump so quickly from "CEO expresses support for LGBT people" to "Christians will be banned from our coffeeshops and we'll only employ gay people, because we object to anyone who's not in a same sex relationship!" is a bit of a mystery to me. But that's how they make these arguments work. I suppose it sort of makes sense in a worldview that is heavily coloured with ideas about spiritual warfare - one battle, two sides, and you're with Jesus, so anyone who disagrees is gaining territory for Satan. If Satan's allowed to win some battles, then he'll go for the next steps which sound ridiculous to anyone who doesn't have this particular worldview.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it sounds very Manichean, as if there are only two forces around, one dark, one light. If you step slightly outside the light, (i.e. homophobia), you are perforce pitched into the darkness, (i.e. gay marriages become compulsory for everyone).

As well as goats, I have heard the one about fathers marrying sons quite a lot, as a slippery slope. It is kind of hysterical.

I wonder if Canadians are marrying goats a lot these days?

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, it sounds very Manichean, as if there are only two forces around, one dark, one light. If you step slightly outside the light, (i.e. homophobia), you are perforce pitched into the darkness, (i.e. gay marriages become compulsory for everyone).

As well as goats, I have heard the one about fathers marrying sons quite a lot, as a slippery slope. It is kind of hysterical.

I wonder if Canadians are marrying goats a lot these days?

I think you've missed a step. Isn't it meant to be polygamy next, then incest, then bestiality? Or is that Plan B?

What amuses me most about this line of thinking is that it comes from people who believe the divinely dictated history of their entire religion contained an incredible amount of polygamy, as well as a smattering of incest, and arguably bestiality, or how would you know? But polygamy is positively approved, and even the vilest perversions barely seem to be worthy of condemnation.

Maybe God's like a crotchety old grandmother, and there are things that disgust Him so much He Just Doesn't Want To Talk About Them.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think the closest San Francisco Christians usually get to persecution is courtesy of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Drag nuns, basically. They do good charitable work...but they also love poking at Christianity--especially around Easter. (E.g., this Easter, there's a Hunky Jesus contest, and an Easter haunted house--said in an article to make a lot of fun of Christianity.)

LGBT folks have many very good reasons to be angry with Christianity, but...

Indeed. Has any faith ever had to endure such a relentless barrage of campy satire? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose a slave-owner could complain that his right to own slaves has been infringed.

Not only could they, they did. That was more or less the whole justification for the Confederate States of America. The Declaration of the Causes of Secession passed by Texas is particularly instructive on this point.

quote:
In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

Posted by Bax (# 16572) on :

The attitude that to clinch an argument one needs to assert:

"....but of course we are the victims here!"

is itself interesting.

I found Girard's book "I see Satan fall like lightening" most instructive on this topic. (Don't let the title of the book put you off...)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/See-Satan-Fall-Rene-Girard/dp/0852442904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364392622&sr=8-1

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I just can't get my head around this "not being able to enforce my moral beliefs on everyone else" = "persecution" thing.

It's quite simple, really. If the world around you has previously been a place that gave a warm, glowing reflection of your thoughts back to you, the removal of that warm glow will feel uncomfortably chilly. The loss of your previous benefit is therefore 'persecution' even if no-one is actively doing anything to make you less uncomfortable than other people.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Of course, there's another way to view this oppression. From the "victim" PoV (at least in the U.S.), it might look like this:

My government grants me freedom of speech (which I can use, for example, to pray aloud), but then forbids my exercising that right on government property and on government time.

My government grants me freedom of religion (which I can use to practice the One and Only True Faith, er, religion of my choice), but then forbids visual and textual expressions of same on government property, unless I'm willing to suffer the horrors of sharing that space with heathen false sinful deceiving idols of Satan's Corrupting Works, like menorahs or Santa Claus.

My government grants me freedom of association (which I can use to hang around with anyone I wish), but then forbids me to evangelize (using my speech and religious rights) those poor wretched fallen benighted tainted heathen atheist sinners whose souls I have committed myself to saving.

It's easy to see how some people arrive, via this route, at the conclusion that The Government Can't Be Trusted (since it seems to talk out of both sides of its mouth), and My Rights Are Being Trampled, and therefore I Am Being Oppressed Because Of My Faith.

It can seem a trifle paradoxical.

[ 27. March 2013, 18:11: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
My government grants me freedom of speech (which I can use, for example, to pray aloud), but then forbids my exercising that right on government property and on government time.

Where does the government forbid people from praying aloud? Just out of curiosity. In the US, the government forbids teachers from leading students in prayer. But the ACLU has fought tooth and nail for the rights of students to have prayer group meetings on school property (something the right-wing anti-ACLU types conveniently forget) (not saying that's you).

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
My government grants me freedom of speech (which I can use, for example, to pray aloud), but then forbids my exercising that right on government property and on government time.
Where does the government forbid people from praying aloud? Just out of curiosity.

It's my (not necessarily up-to-date) understanding that students are allowed to pray on school property only outside of regular school hours, and only away from 'common' areas, so others are not forced to overhear such prayers. So, yes, you're right, they can pray on gov. property, but then some have complained that the secluded nature of the prayer stomps on their free speech rights to 'witness' to their faith. It appears that, at least for some, the point of prayer is at least as much to be seen/heard praying by the godless sinners who threaten, er, surround them as it is to commune with their deity. I suspect that, for some, witness may be a form of communion, and therefore what I see as two potentially different prayer-purposes overlap or even coincide for others.

I don't personally agree or support this approach, but I do see their point: the government seems to them to be granting with one hand what it removes with the other.

In the legislature where I currently serve, the House Speaker calls a recess before the opening exercises every session. The exercises consist of opening prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and a rendition of the national anthem. I sometimes wonder if a case can be made over the fact that the chamber in which these exercises take place is otherwise used solely for public governmental purposes aside from this 10-minute recess, and that any prayer conducted there is therefore out-of-place if not out-of-order. The legislative prayer group meets at a nearby church, for example.

But frankly, I haven't the time or energy to bother. They do at least make an attempt to represent different religious groups with the prayers (although the House Chaplain is the senior pastor of my former church). I've yet to hear prayers from any imams or Hindu holy men, though.

Still, I wish I didn't have to provide my assent-through-silence to what, IMO, is both superstition and a minor imposition on my time. I'm stuck in the middle of a row, and would have to climb over several people in either direction to remove myself.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

...I've yet to hear prayers from any imams or Hindu holy men, though...

The Oregon Legislature received a blessing in Sanskrit from a Nepalese Buddhist priest, Portland being home to the only such temple outside Nepal.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to judge the reaction of the recipients from the video I saw.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Ah, so the government prevents people from haranguing others -- particularly others who are a captive audience (you can't get away from school). Which is apparently a basic right. This goes right back to the title of the thread.

I suppose it makes sense that they want to religiously bully other kids, since a lot of conservatives in this country think anti-bullying rules and laws are bad. God wants us to hound other children into committing suicide, whenever and wherever possible.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where does the government forbid people from praying aloud? Just out of curiosity.
It's my (not necessarily up-to-date) understanding that students are allowed to pray on school property only outside of regular school hours, and only away from 'common' areas, so others are not forced to overhear such prayers. So, yes, you're right, they can pray on gov. property, but then some have complained that the secluded nature of the prayer stomps on their free speech rights to 'witness' to their faith.

That is indeed a very outdated understanding of school prayer. Students are allowed to pray in any non-disruptive way at school, even during school hours. For example, saying a blessing over your lunch is allowed, even in a crowded lunchroom where other students can see or hear* you. Bellowing the Lord's Prayer at the top of your lungs during exam time is not. Witnessing or otherwise discussing religion is likewise permitted, provided it's both non-disruptive and non-harassing. In other words, a public school is not permitted to engage in "viewpoint discrimination" by singling out ideas of a religious nature for treatment different than any other set of ideas.

Where public schools most often get into trouble is when the administration tries to organize religious activities. That's outside their remit.

--------------------
* Just kidding. It's a school lunchroom. There's no way anyone will hear you.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

For those who are interested, you can take the ACLU's religion in public schools pop quiz. It's pretty straightforward, if you understand the principles involved.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

It's worth adding that it's completely OK to use the Bible, say, in public schools as an example of literature. Studying the use of language in the KJV is fine.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I think the closest San Francisco Christians usually get to persecution is courtesy of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence. Drag nuns, basically. They do good charitable work...but they also love poking at Christianity--especially around Easter. (E.g., this Easter, there's a Hunky Jesus contest, and an Easter haunted house--said in an article to make a lot of fun of Christianity.)

LGBT folks have many very good reasons to be angry with Christianity, but...

Indeed. Has any faith ever had to endure such a relentless barrage of campy satire?

My intent was to be somewhat humorous. Sorry if I failed!

What I was trying to say is that being lampooned by the Sisters is about as close to being persecuted as San Francisco Christians are likely to get--and that isn't close at all.

I did mention that they do good charitable work, and have good reason to be angry with Christianity. I'm fine with their drag nuns schtick/routine. I'm just not so fine with making a big, public deal of poking at Christianity at Christian holidays. That's all.

[Angel]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

...I've yet to hear prayers from any imams or Hindu holy men, though...
The Oregon Legislature received a blessing in Sanskrit from a Nepalese Buddhist priest, Portland being home to the only such temple outside Nepal.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to judge the reaction of the recipients from the video I saw.

I seem to recall some strum und drang from the local OMG WE'RE PERSECUTED crowd when that went down, but these people will shout "Persecution!" at the drop of a Promise Keepers hat.

Portland's the least-religious city in the US, by the way.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Portland's the least-religious city in the US, by the way.

The least self-reportedly religious city in the U.S. That's not necessarily the same thing.

Posted by HenryT (# 3722) on :

Whenever "persecution" talk breaks out, I ask that someone name a conservative kicked to death by liberals. Strangely, no one ever can. And they get very uncomfortable, for fear I should start naming those kicked to death by conservatives and their ilk.

And, alas, I'm utterly literal about kicked to death.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Well, if you beat your child because she dishonours you by dating - we might put her in care eventually ...

(If you kill her, to prevent her further endangering her immortal soul in the USA - they might execute you.)

[ 29. March 2013, 10:52: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
Portland's the least-religious city in the US, by the way.
The least self-reportedly religious city in the U.S. That's not necessarily the same thing.

Living here, lemme tell you, it's pretty damn close.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Also, in Canada after gay marriage was introduced, Christians could only go out after dark, they are so afraid of being set on and beaten. In fact, in some towns, the word 'Christian' is itself banned, and some euphemism has to be found.

That's just the anti English laws in Quebec :-)

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There seems to be a landslide of people coming out in favor of gay marriage in the US around the Supreme Court cases. Politicians who were anti-ssm out of political calculation are feeling brave enough to support it.

This leaves the anti gay marriage people in an awkward position since a majority of young people think they're dead wrong.

The temporary strategy is to deny their previous positions. To quote Rush Limbaugh,Right Wing Radio Host; of course gays should be allowed civil unions,just not redefining marriage. Really? Did you not fulminate against civil unions a year ago.

Part of this strategy is to blur the history and focus on "we're just concerned on how anti-gay-marriage people are treated so they're not persecute". They're viewed as wrong, old fashioned or despicable, but persecution is a stretch. Just like how slaveholders were persecuted after the Emancipation.

If the public shift continues; and it's hard to tell if it will; gay marriage will become as uncontroversial as inter-racial marriage. And if that happens, there's going to be a period of silence followed by a rewriting of history by the church groups that fought it.

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

Over in the UK, George Carey's worried about being oppressed now. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

I was impressed at a meeting of clergy when ArchB Sentamu (a conservative Evangelical) was asked by other conservative Evangelicals to comment on the "persecution" of Christians by the British media. His answer was that he'd seen real persecution abroad, and that whatever happened in Britain did not count as persecution.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Good for him. (Sentamu, not Carey,)

[ 31. March 2013, 16:01: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
I was impressed at a meeting of clergy when ArchB Sentamu (a conservative Evangelical) was asked by other conservative Evangelicals to comment on the "persecution" of Christians by the British media. His answer was that he'd seen real persecution abroad, and that whatever happened in Britain did not count as persecution.

Exactly. Same goes for America.

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
Over in the UK, George Carey's worried about being oppressed now.

Specifically, worried because a few bureaucrats might lose their jobs if they refuse to perform new duties.

The only question I see is whether employees in general have a right to an unchanging job description. I don't see how they do, unless they are members of labor unions strong enough to demand that proposed changes be negotiated. In the U.S., at least, across-the-board "conservatives" are anti-organized-labor. Hence they wouldn't want to argue that such power is a good thing and have probably done all they can to prevent it.

If you refuse to do work that you see as harmful, that's fine, and welcome to the crowd: those who don't believe in drinking so can't work in breweries or bars; who cannot work in casinos because they oppose gambling; who spurn interrupting family meals and therefore will not work as telemarketers.... the list goes on and on. There is no cause for a chip on the shoulder or a feeling that one has been uniquely put upon.

This man was once chosen to be Archbishop of Canterbury in a branch of the church that values reason... and in the good old days at that? I blush. Perhaps he has been so long retired that his brain isn't working as well as it once did.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If Carey knew his history, he would know that candidates for baptism in the early church could not be in the military, be actors or be school teachers.

If he is a 'traditionalist', he should expect that Christians cannot do certain jobs.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If Carey knew his history, he would know that candidates for baptism in the early church could not be in the military, be actors or be school teachers.

If he is a 'traditionalist', he should expect that Christians cannot do certain jobs.

The military restriction faded rapidly, for there are very early tales of martyrs among the military ranks.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

And Cornelius, in Acts 10?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

What did the early church have against teachers?

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
What did the early church have against teachers?

Subject to correction by one more learned than myself, I believe it was because whatever the word that is translated as "teacher" is, the meaning was people who taught philosophy. And the church only became reconciled to philosophy some decades (a couple of centuries?) along. Because it knew -- don't we all -- that philsophers were a bunch of anti-theists. WHich many may have been, of course, for all I know.

As for the soldiers mentioned above, Cornelius was a3-4 decades ahead of the prohibition in question. And it was a live issue for a good long while, before the force of numbers after Constantine (when all soldiers were encouraged by the state to convert, as it were) forced the church to change its tune. THe prohibition, after all, predates the concept of a "just war". It reflects the reality that soldiers of the time were expected to -- and many did -- rape, kill and commit other offences against God if necessary as part of their jobs.

John

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Subject to correction by one more learned than myself, I believe it was because whatever the word that is translated as "teacher" is, the meaning was people who taught philosophy. And the church only became reconciled to philosophy some decades (a couple of centuries?) along. Because it knew -- don't we all -- that philsophers were a bunch of anti-theists. WHich many may have been, of course, for all I know.

That's an old idea. One of the official charges for which Socrates was convicted and executed was atheism. Of course, the real charge against Socrates was espousing a philosophy that produced people like Critias and Alkibiades, but he couldn't be charged with that under the amnesty established after the fall of the Thirty Tyrants.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0