Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh well, you'll die of old age like the rest of the dinosaurs and turn into oil--heavy crude would be my guess.

We've covered all the points, your definitions are interestingly your own and condemn a lot of other people to 2nd class citizenship while keeping you elevated to 1st class. I understand self-serving bigotry, but it doesn't appeal to me much. Thanks for the trip through your muddy mind, Pale.

 

[vyo476]

You genuinely believe that if modern liberalism gained a greater foothold in the US that Christians wouldn't be one of thier first targets? Take a good look at Europe where modern liberalism does have a greater foothold before you start claiming that no such thing would happen.

If Christianity gained a "greater foothold" in the US that, according to you, already persecutes them, what do you suppose would happen to liberals?

What would happen to homosexuals?

What would happen to practitioners of minority religions, like Wicca or Rastafarianism?

What would happen to Muslims?

What would happen to women who desire social equality with men?

Do you care?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If Christianity gained a "greater foothold" in the US that, according to you, already persecutes them, what do you suppose would happen to liberals?

What would happen to homosexuals?

What would happen to practitioners of minority religions, like Wicca or Rastafarianism?

What would happen to Muslims?

What would happen to women who desire social equality with men?

Do you care?

Yes, Pale DOES care, he hates the idea that there might be equality.

As a side note, Pale, many of the indigenous cultures didn't have marriage the way we think of it--in churches with Bible-beaters bleating like sheeple--but they had rituals and ceremonies that all the people could take part in and all people could be seen with respect. I know a t-girl from one of the Pacific Islands and in her culture transgendered people are held in high esteem because they have the ability to see both sides of the gender spectrum. They marry and their love is no less sacred than any other.

You seem to be a liar, with one side of your mouth you talk about freedom "from" but with the other you push for Draconian State punishments on those who disagree with you, those who wish to make other choices than you do. You deny it, but you embody almost everything I dislike about authoritarian Catholicism. You lie about not hating, or even caring about, gay and transgendered people, while at the same time you admit that you would tear their lives apart if you had the chance. Unlike your predecessors in the KKK who believed that the only thing that mattered was the color of the skin, you have made the microscopic leap forward and now a person's gender/sexual orientation is the only thing that matters. But you are so poorly educated that you can't tell the difference between those two things (a very Christian and Catholic stance).

I find one of the major differences between us is that while I have not and will not vote to take any right or privilege away from you that I claim for myself, you are adamant that YOU deserve things that you are only too happy to deny to others with the force of law--the very government coercion about which you have been snivelling, and for which you have been blaming evil "liberals". Your two-faced attitude suggests that you would be very cruel if you were given the chance. Your behavior reminds me of a quote in the SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT by Hans Ruesch in which he talked about cruelty and notes that anyone who would do terribly cruel things would not hesitate to lie about it.

Our discussions are done, you have nothing to offer but more lies, more twisted, self-serving definitions, and an incessant advocation of cruelty and bestiality towards others.

 

[palerider]

If Christianity gained a "greater foothold" in the US that, according to you, already persecutes them, what do you suppose would happen to liberals?

Christianity already had a greater foothold. In fact, it was taught in all public schools. Tell me, what happened to liberals? Were they rounded up and shoved into ovens? Were they jailed for their ideas? Can you name some laws that targeted them specifically?

What happened to liberals when Christianity reigned supreme in the US was nothing. They were allowed to be and do exactly what they did do and become.

What would happen to homosexuals?

What "happened" to homosexuals when Christianity was in charge of everything? Were there leper camps for them? Were they rounded up? The few laws on the books were written during times when democrats were in charge and as far as I can tell, no law was ever written that made it illegal to be homosexual.

What would happen to practitioners of minority religions, like Wicca or Rastafarianism?

What happened to them? What has happened to the practitioners of any religion since the US came into being?

What would happen to Muslims?

What happened to them?

What would happen to women who desire social equality with men?

What happened to them? There were plenty of strong women throughout history who wanted social equality. Which ones were locked up during the time when Christianity had a very strong foothold in government?


The question was pointless. You can already look back and see exactly what happened to people during a time when Christianity had its foothold, and that foothold lasted a couple of hundred years. What happened? What laws were written? A few anti sodomy laws and some blue laws. Compare those to the intrusion into every aspect of your life by modern liberalism and look at some of the things they still want to do and look at europe where we are heading and tell me that you don't think that modern liberalism is inherently authoritarian in nature.

 

[palerider]

Oh well, you'll die of old age like the rest of the dinosaurs and turn into oil--heavy crude would be my guess.

Just for your info, that whole dinosaurs turning into oil theory is falling into disrepute. And my kids are at least as conservative as me. Being a conservative, I didn't expect the state to raise my kids for me or for them to raise themselves. My wife and I raised them and taught them our values so when I am gone, my legacy will live on.

We've covered all the points, your definitions are interestingly your own and condemn a lot of other people to 2nd class citizenship while keeping you elevated to 1st class. I understand self-serving bigotry, but it doesn't appeal to me much. Thanks for the trip through your muddy mind, Pale.

Yes we did, and we discovered that you are a fine example of a modern liberal. You are perfectly willing to use the force of government to redefine terms and make law that will attempt to force society to become what you want it to be for no better reason than it is what you want. Look back through history, there is ample evidence of what happens when people attempt to redefine society by force of law.

I do appreciate that you proved my point for me.

 

[palerider]

Yes, Pale DOES care, he hates the idea that there might be equality.

Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator. Look at the soviet union, china, or cambodia if you are interested in seeing what the lowest common denominator looks like. And you don't want equality, you want special rights because you want them. You have even redefined equality to encompass granting special rights to particular groups.

As a side note, Pale, many of the indigenous cultures didn't have marriage the way we think of it--in churches with Bible-beaters bleating like sheeple--but they had rituals and ceremonies that all the people could take part in and all people could be seen with respect. I know a t-girl from one of the Pacific Islands and in her culture transgendered people are held in high esteem because they have the ability to see both sides of the gender spectrum. They marry and their love is no less sacred than any other.

I note that you still havent provided any credible evidence and "you read" and "you know" simply doesn't carry any weight. Marriage is what it is and always has been what it is; an arrangement between men and women.

You seem to be a liar, with one side of your mouth you talk about freedom "from" but with the other you push for Draconian State punishments on those who disagree with you, those who wish to make other choices than you do.

What punishment? A refusal to redefine what a word has meant for centuries and to grant a very small group special rights based on their sexual preference? That isn't punishment.

You deny it, but you embody almost everything I dislike about authoritarian Catholicism. You lie about not hating, or even caring about, gay and transgendered people, while at the same time you admit that you would tear their lives apart if you had the chance.

I don't care about what they do mare, I care about their wish to redefine institutions and their attempt to mandate respect using the force of law. You just don't get it. You are so full of hate, that you believe that everyone else hates also. There are plenty of things that I would like to see happen but I am not about to attempt to make law and redefine society in order to see them happen. The one law I do fight for is an end to abortion on demand and that is for no other reason than to protect human rights.

Unlike your predecessors in the KKK who believed that the only thing that mattered was the color of the skin, you have made the microscopic leap forward and now a person's gender/sexual orientation is the only thing that matters. But you are so poorly educated that you can't tell the difference between those two things (a very Christian and Catholic stance).

Mare, you are more like the KKK than I. You are willing to use force to see what you want enforced, just like them. You are willing to use law to impose your wishes upon everyone rather than simply leave people alone.

I find one of the major differences between us is that while I have not and will not vote to take any right or privilege away from you that I claim for myself, you are adamant that YOU deserve things that you are only too happy to deny to others with the force of law--the very government coercion about which you have been snivelling, and for which you have been blaming evil "liberals".

Lying doesn't make it true mare.

Your two-faced attitude suggests that you would be very cruel if you were given the chance. Your behavior reminds me of a quote in the SLAUGHTER OF THE INNOCENT by Hans Ruesch in which he talked about cruelty and notes that anyone who would do terribly cruel things would not hesitate to lie about it.

Funny, you call me two faced, crying for freedom while at the same time wishing for law that literally redefines society into your image. I have to hand it to you though, you have created yourself a damned fine delusion. You are the quintesential hypocrite and have done such a fine job on yourself that you can't even begin to see it.

Our discussions are done, you have nothing to offer but more lies, more twisted, self-serving definitions, and an incessant advocation of cruelty and bestiality towards others.

Well, one of us is a liar mare. Sometimes a very good liar, and sometimes not. I tell the truth mare. Even when it isn't pleasant, I tell the truth. You have wrapped your lies and your hate into such a tight knot that it is impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins. You are unable to argue any point with any degree of credibility. Everyone who disagrees with you is a catholic, or a fundy or a Bible thumper. You never refute a point, you go off on ranting tangents about those you hate.

Agan, thanks for proving my point so eloquently.

 

[vyo476]

Christianity already had a greater foothold. In fact, it was taught in all public schools. Tell me, what happened to liberals?

Many liberal ideas were (and still are) condemned virulently by Christianity.

Were they rounded up and shoved into ovens?

No, but if you believe that modern liberals like myself or Mare would ever advocate doing that to today's Christians, your head isn't screwed on correctly.

Were they jailed for their ideas?

For taking action on their ideas, absolutely. Think Thoreau. Think early labor unions. Think Underground Railroad conductors. All of these were liberals who believed in newfangled ideas like conscientous objection, workers' rights, and racial equality, and when they did something about their beliefs, they were punished.

I would never seek to limit a Christian's ability to believe what he wants by force (I might engage in theological debate as I don't believe what he believes, and in the process may convince him to reconsider his faith, but this hardly "by force"). I might seek to limit a Christian's ability to take drastic public action based on those beliefs if I don't agree with said action, such as teaching only creationism in public schools. On other issues I might not, as I am a byproduct of Western culture and "Western culture" is in many ways a byproduct of Christianity.

I might seek to limit any religion's public influence here in my home. You and I have debated Islam more than once and you know that I defend that religion virulenty from attack; this is not because I wish in any way to live in an Islamic society but because I believe they ought to be able to believe what they want. The ones who come here, attack us, and demand we change our way of life - those I condemn.

Can you name some laws that targeted them specifically?

I can probably name dozens of laws that have targeted liberal values over the course of this country's history. It is one thing to say, "It is not okay for people to..." rather than "It is not okay for liberals to...". And it is yet another to say, "It is not okay for Christians to...". The first statement happens a lot. The other two? Never.

What happened to liberals when Christianity reigned supreme in the US was nothing. They were allowed to be and do exactly what they did do and become.

Convoluted sentence structure isn't going to save you from a laughably false statement. If you are saying that all liberals under Christian governments have been allowed to do exactly what they want then, once again, a head exam might be in order.

What "happened" to homosexuals when Christianity was in charge of everything?

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder up until the 1970s.

Ask any Christian spouting lines about how "man lying with man is abomination" what they think of homosexuals having rights and see what the answer is.

Or, if that's too hands-on, here's a Wiki article for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Christianity

Or, perhaps, the words of Jerry Falwell on his vision of America:

"AIDS", he said, "is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals." Falwell also opposed the concept of public schools: "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

http://www.nndb.com/people/558/000022492/

This is what religion has the potential to do in the wrong hands.

Were there leper camps for them? Were they rounded up?

There are other paradigms for suffering than forced relocation. Since none of that is happening to Christians in America today and you still contend that they are persecuted, I would have thought you might understand that.

The few laws on the books were written during times when democrats were in charge and as far as I can tell, no law was ever written that made it illegal to be homosexual.

Democrat doesn't necessarily mean liberal, especially in a historical discussion.

Perhaps a law was never made to make it illegal to be a homosexual. Perhaps no law will ever be made to make it illegal to be a Christian. If, however, a law was made forbidding the worship of Jesus, what would you say?

What happened to them? What has happened to the practitioners of any religion since the US came into being?

Have you ever studied Mormon history? One persecution after another. They kept moving west and the United States kept expanding, catching up, and persecuting again.

Did you know that it only recently became legal for pagans in the military to have pentacles displayed on their tombs?

Even Christians themselves haven't been safe from other Christians; one of the lesser-known targest of the KKK were Catholics. Because the KKK hated Christianity? No, certainly not; because they believed they were the only true Christians.

What happened to them?

In the US, very little, but then there weren't a whole lot of them here until fairly recently. Throughout history, though, no other religion can claim more direct confrontation with Christianity than Islam.

What happened to them? There were plenty of strong women throughout history who wanted social equality. Which ones were locked up during the time when Christianity had a very strong foothold in government?

Women's liberation history (sadly) isn't my strong suit. Locked up? Maybe not. Ignored completely? For decades, yes. It wasn't until women started working in industry during World War I that their voices started to matter to the men running things; piss women off in 1848, nothing much happens, piss them off in 1918, the economy collapses.

The question was pointless. You can already look back and see exactly what happened to people during a time when Christianity had its foothold, and that foothold lasted a couple of hundred years. What happened? What laws were written? A few anti sodomy laws and some blue laws. Compare those to the intrusion into every aspect of your life by modern liberalism and look at some of the things they still want to do and look at europe where we are heading and tell me that you don't think that modern liberalism is inherently authoritarian in nature.

A few anti-sodomy laws, some blue laws, and an entire culture of repression.

You repressed us in ways we didn't like and now we're repressing you in ways you don't like. I suggest you deal with it.

 

[Coyote]

You genuinely believe that if modern liberalism gained a greater foothold in the US that Christians wouldn't be one of thier first targets? Take a good look at Europe where modern liberalism does have a greater foothold before you start claiming that no such thing would happen.

Show me facts that there is actual persecution of Christians in Europe.

Show me facts that Christians are singled out for regular persecution here - and I don't mean the isolated extremes that are always dredged up - I mean something in legislation or culture that regularly persecutes them anywhere near what the Jews in Europe have had been through or what homosexuals in this country have been through or what blacks, American-Indians in this country went through or what immigrant Chinese prior to WW2 went through...??? Athiests in this country are persecuted more then Christians for heaven's sakes - when was there an openly athiest Presidential candidate? Every candidate rushes to put forth their religious credentials. Come on - lets be real here and quite whining about non-existant persecution. Liberalism espouses a seperation of church and state but that does not mean - NO CHURCH for one simple reason. The majority of American liberals are RELIGIOUS and for the most part - that religion is Christianity - despite tons of hype and misinformation and scare tactics to the contrary.

Have Christians been singled out like any of these groups - even remotely?

 

[Coyote]

If Christianity gained a "greater foothold" in the US that, according to you, already persecutes them, what do you suppose would happen to liberals?

What would happen to homosexuals?

What would happen to practitioners of minority religions, like Wicca or Rastafarianism?

What would happen to Muslims?

What would happen to women who desire social equality with men?

Do you care?

I think one look at history will provide all the answers we need here....and it won't be pretty.

 

[Coyote]

Christianity already had a greater foothold. In fact, it was taught in all public schools. Tell me, what happened to liberals? Were they rounded up and shoved into ovens? Were they jailed for their ideas? Can you name some laws that targeted them specifically?

Well...let me see...forced Christianization of American Indians?

That's a starter.

Salem witch trials - crispy critters sans barbecue sauce.

State laws and constitutions requiring a professed faith in Christianity in order to teach or serve in public office.


Homosexuals - they didn't like them fags too much did they? A quick look at old state laws will clarify those attitudes.

Liberals - is vague and meaningless in the context of this debate.

What happened to liberals when Christianity reigned supreme in the US was nothing. They were allowed to be and do exactly what they did do and become.

Debating Liberals vs. Christians - is vague and meaningless nonsense, they are two different categories.

What "happened" to homosexuals when Christianity was in charge of everything? Were there leper camps for them? Were they rounded up? The few laws on the books were written during times when democrats were in charge and as far as I can tell, no law was ever written that made it illegal to be homosexual.

This is also nonsense - come on Pale, you usually do better then this - this is downright intellectually dishonest. Democrats do not equal liberals for one thing - parties and ideologies are fluid and change with the years. Are you talking about religion or ideologies or political parties or mixing them all up in an attempt to make a point?

Anti-sodomy laws existed from the founding of the colonies and states - long before official parties of Democrat or Republican and those laws came right out of a religious cultural sense of values.

What happened to them? There were plenty of strong women throughout history who wanted social equality. Which ones were locked up during the time when Christianity had a very strong foothold in government?

Look at the history of woman's suffrage. Look at how easily women could be committed to insane asylums by their husbands/fathers/brothers for any reason...such as acting uppity. Christianity had and has still a very strong foothold in government and society. Come back when we have a President who is athiest or muslim - right now, that would not be even remotely electable.

 

[palerider]

Many liberal ideas were (and still are) condemned virulently by Christianity.

What laws were passed to quell those ideas?

No, but if you believe that modern liberals like myself or Mare would ever advocate doing that to today's Christians, your head isn't screwed on correctly.

Maybe you should read some of the vitriol that mare has spewed towards Christians before you make such a statement. Maybe you shoud go visit a place like democrat underground to see exactly how much hate modern liberalism is capable of before you make such a statement.

For taking action on their ideas, absolutely. Think Thoreau. Think early labor unions. Think Underground Railroad conductors. All of these were liberals who believed in newfangled ideas like conscientous objection, workers' rights, and racial equality, and when they did something about their beliefs, they were punished.

Thoreau? He was a classical liberal. Modern conservativisim is one in the same with classical liberalism. The same is true for the underground railroad. All of your examples are of classical liberals.

I would never seek to limit a Christian's ability to believe what he wants by force (I might engage in theological debate as I don't believe what he believes, and in the process may convince him to reconsider his faith, but this hardly "by force"). I might seek to limit a Christian's ability to take drastic public action based on those beliefs if I don't agree with said action, such as teaching only creationism in public schools. On other issues I might not, as I am a byproduct of Western culture and "Western culture" is in many ways a byproduct of Christianity.

Define "drastic" public action. Is teaching a thing as one possible action "drastic"?

I can probably name dozens of laws that have targeted liberal values over the course of this country's history. It is one thing to say, "It is not okay for people to..." rather than "It is not okay for liberals to...". And it is yet another to say, "It is not okay for Christians to...". The first statement happens a lot. The other two? Never.

Three or four shoud suffice.

Convoluted sentence structure isn't going to save you from a laughably false statement. If you are saying that all liberals under Christian governments have been allowed to do exactly what they want then, once again, a head exam might be in order.

I am talking about the US and I am talking about laws targeted directly at liberal ideals.

Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder up until the 1970s.

So now evidence is strongly suggesting that it is a genetic disorder. Do you believe that special rights should be given and established institutions redefined because of a genetic defect that affects 2 to 3% of the population?

Ask any Christian spouting lines about how "man lying with man is abomination" what they think of homosexuals having rights and see what the answer is.

Or, if that's too hands-on, here's a Wiki article for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality#Christianity

Or, perhaps, the words of Jerry Falwell on his vision of America:[/quote]

And your point is? These are individuals exercising their right to free speech. That is a far cry from imposing the force of government on people to have what they want. People like falwell don't scare me because they have nothing but talk. They will tell people what they should and shouldn't, but they aren't asking for laws (like modern liberals) that demand. There is a clear difference. Can you give an example of someone like falwell demanding law that would literally force people to accept his view of the way things should be?

Democrat doesn't necessarily mean liberal, especially in a historical discussion.

Strange. You were perfectly content to compare classical liberals who fought slavery and such with modern liberals.

Perhaps a law was never made to make it illegal to be a homosexual. Perhaps no law will ever be made to make it illegal to be a Christian. If, however, a law was made forbidding the worship of Jesus, what would you say?

I wouldn't be surprised at all. Would you?

Have you ever studied Mormon history? One persecution after another. They kept moving west and the United States kept expanding, catching up, and persecuting again.

Did you know that it only recently became legal for pagans in the military to have pentacles displayed on their tombs?

Even Christians themselves haven't been safe from other Christians; one of the lesser-known targest of the KKK were Catholics. Because the KKK hated Christianity? No, certainly not; because they believed they were the only true Christians.

With the exception of the pagans, you are talking about individuals, not the force of government. There is a vast chasm between the actions of individuals and the force of government. Modern liberals are perfectly content to make laws demanding that things be the way they want them and as such, are perfectly willing to punish those who refuse to accept their way. The willingness to make law reflects a willingness to punish those who won't go along.

Women's liberation history (sadly) isn't my strong suit. Locked up? Maybe not. Ignored completely? For decades, yes. It wasn't until women started working in industry during World War I that their voices started to matter to the men running things; piss women off in 1848, nothing much happens, piss them off in 1918, the economy collapses.

I find no records of women being locked up. Further, in the times you are talking about, when you speak of liberals, you are talking about classical liberalism as defined by the constitution, not modern liberalism.

If you are curious about the difference, ask yourself a question. Would you like to live in a US where the Constitution, as it was written were strictly adhered to?

You repressed us in ways we didn't like and now we're repressing you in ways you don't like. I suggest you deal with it.

I don't believe that you have ever given any real thought to what you just said. Look at the great leftist hell holes if you want to see where modern liberalism ends up if given its way. Do you think that lenin or stalin, or mao or pol pot set out to kill millions upon millions and drive their people into abject misery? They began with the highest ideals. Ideals that I am sure that you would agree with. The thing is, you can't use the power of government to enforce ideals.

 

[palerider]

Well...let me see...forced Christianization of American Indians?

That began before there was a USA.

Salem witch trials - crispy critters sans barbecue sauce.

That happened in the british colonies, not the USA.

State laws and constitutions requiring a professed faith in Christianity in order to teach or serve in public office.

Written during a time when there were still established state churches.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

What the Pales of the world don't realize is that you can't piss on other people and tell them it's raining and get away with it forever. Peace requires equality, and there will never be peace as long as the Pales of the world take rights and privileges for themselves that they happily deny to others. Pale cannot even countenance the US Constitution--how sad is that?

I keep reading Pale's drivel, arguing about whether it was actually the US when the slaughter of the indigenous peoples began--verbal spam, nothing more. Power is what matters to Pale because it counters his fear, even though he won't admit it, he's driven by fear, that's why he has no compassion for people and covers it up by pretending hyper-compassion for clumps of cells. The clumps of cells are no threat to him, it's once those cells become real people that they become a danger that he needs to contol with his rules and laws and religion.

What a sad way to live one's life, in fear, compassionless, willing to tear other's lives apart in a futile attempt to assuage a sempiternal fear. As sad and sick as that is, I still would not take for myself any right or privilege that I would deny to him. That's the salient difference between us and all the blather about Liberals and Conservatives is just obfuscation.

 

[Coyote]

That began before there was a USA.

Irrelevant.

First - it's totally inaccurate: it may have begun before there was a USA but the bulk of it occurred during the westward expansion in the 1800's of the US of A.

Second - it does not effect the argument concerning religion here.

That happened in the british colonies, not the USA.

Again, irrelevant. It does not change what can and does occur when religion governs unbridled by a fair and secular system of law.

Written during a time when there were still established state churches.

And irrelevant - it doesn't change the point.


Now, can you bring up any genuine cases of liberal persecution of Christians on par with what occurred to the Jews in Europe (as you were suggesting earlier)? And - particularly in Europe since you brought that up?

 

[Coyote]

What the Pales of the world don't realize is that you can't piss on other people and tell them it's raining and get away with it forever. Peace requires equality, and there will never be peace as long as the Pales of the world take rights and privileges for themselves that they happily deny to others. Pale cannot even countenance the US Constitution--how sad is that?

I keep reading Pale's drivel, arguing about whether it was actually the US when the slaughter of the indigenous peoples began--verbal spam, nothing more. Power is what matters to Pale because it counters his fear, even though he won't admit it, he's driven by fear, that's why he has no compassion for people and covers it up by pretending hyper-compassion for clumps of cells. The clumps of cells are no threat to him, it's once those cells become real people that they become a danger that he needs to contol with his rules and laws and religion.

What a sad way to live one's life, in fear, compassionless, willing to tear other's lives apart in a futile attempt to assuage a sempiternal fear. As sad and sick as that is, I still would not take for myself any right or privilege that I would deny to him. That's the salient difference between us and all the blather about Liberals and Conservatives is just obfuscation.

PaleRider genuinely believes in the humanity and right to life of that "clump of cells" - and I respect that. I'll give on that.

However - this particular argument is very very weak. In fact, pathetic and, without facts to back opinion with I'll agree with you - it smells suspiciously of obuscation.


(someone pass the cheetos please)