The W
Views: 95660283
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.4.14 1726
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... Unconstitutional (Page 2)
This thread has 71 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2514 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (58 total)
Freeway
Scrapple








Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 118 days
Last activity: 89 days
#21 Posted on
A Brief History of the Pledge of Allegiance

The original Pledge of Allegiance, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the Republic for which it stands -- One nation indivisible -- with liberty and justice for all," was written in September of 1892 by Francis Bellamy for "The Youth's Companion" magazine in Boston. The phrase was printed on leaflets and sent to schools throughout the United States.

The first organized use of the Pledge of Allegiance came on Oct. 12, 1892, when some 12 million American school children recited it to commemorate the 400-year anniversary of Columbus' voyage.

In 1923, the first National Flag Conference in Washington D.C. voted to change the words "my flag" to "the Flag of the United States of America."

Congress officially recognized the Pledge of Allegiance in 1942, but in 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that public school students could not be forced to recite it.

The words "under God" were added in 1954 by then President Eisenhower, who stated at the time, "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."



So, somebody wrote something to increase nationalist fervor following the Civil War [to try and make America one great country]. Following the First World War [and the isolationist nationalism that followed] it was tweaked a bit. And following the Second World War [and the more conventional nationalism that still exists today], Eisenhower added "under God" because HE was a religious man. So, it's all the fault of social trends and Eisenhower.




Bart: Hey, immigrants! Beat it! Country's full!
Sailor: OK people, you heard the lady. Back into the hold. We'll try Canada.
[the immigrants moan]
-- "The City of New York Vs. Homer Simpson"


"That's what the Internet is for, slandering others anonymously" Banky Edwards (Jason Lee) in Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3288 days
Last activity: 3282 days
#22 Posted on
And Jefferson would not have had a problem with that what-so-ever. Because even though he was a deist, he was a "religious man" as well.

DMC

(edited by DMC on 27.6.02 0947)


"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
pieman
As young as
he feels








Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.21


Nice work, Guru. You post the link, then walk away to watch the fireworks, ya bastard!

The picture in my morning paper here in Maine had little grade schoolers from Sunnyvale, CA reciting the pledge (which of course, my kindergartner says every day!).



He's Rolie Polie Olie - and in his world of curves and curls, he's the swellest kid around.
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4268 days
Last activity: 4233 days
#24 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    And Jefferson would not have had a problem with that what-so-ever. Because even though he was a deist, he was a "religious man" as well.

    DMC

    (edited by DMC on 27.6.02 0947)



Jefferson didn't have a problem with slavery, either. What precisely is your point?

See, the basic idea of "freedom and equality" was originally intended within the cultural context of the time (white male landowning Protestants of all stripes), but has since proven useful in broader applications.



I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3288 days
Last activity: 3282 days
#25 Posted on
I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.

My point is that the pledge is in no way out of step with what the Founders believed and would have approved of. The slavery issue is different in that many of them realized it was an important issue to deal with and was not seen by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They simply chose not to deal with the consequences of dealing with slavery ("in order to form...a union") and left that to future generations. Again, you can say they were just as mistaken to have allowed for expressions of faith in the U.S. government. If you do, then join the hardline atheists who are fighting to remove all expression of faith from everywhere except underneath your bed sheets. If you think they will be successful, more power to you and them. But I doubt they will be.

DMC




"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4268 days
Last activity: 4233 days
#26 Posted on
Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters.


    Originally posted by DMC
    I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.

    My point is that the pledge is in no way out of step with what the Founders believed and would have approved of. The slavery issue is different in that many of them realized it was an important issue to deal with and was not seen by them as the greatest thing since sliced bread. They simply chose not to deal with the consequences of dealing with slavery ("in order to form...a union") and left that to future generations. Again, you can say they were just as mistaken to have allowed for expressions of faith in the U.S. government. If you do, then join the hardline atheists who are fighting to remove all expression of faith from everywhere except underneath your bed sheets. If you think they will be successful, more power to you and them. But I doubt they will be.

    DMC





I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3288 days
Last activity: 3282 days
#27 Posted on
"Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

DMC



"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
Debaser
Mettwurst








Since: 22.3.02

Since last post: 4268 days
Last activity: 4233 days
#28 Posted on
They don't bother me in any more than a loose intellectual sense, but obviously some atheists get pissy about it, just like many many Christians will get pissy if the SC doesn't overturn the ruling. I think the first group are in the "right" because they're asking for neutrality as opposed to favoritism based simply on popularity and pedigree, but I think both are probably too high strung about it.

As to "Why?". Well, you don't have to recite the pledge in school, but how many 8 year olds are going to feel comfortable leaving the room every morning while the rest of the class does? Do I, as the theoretical atheist parent of said 8 year old want to try to make him understand why every other authority figure in his life is into this "God" idea but he shouldn't be? Do I want the people in charge of a good deal of scientific and artistic funding officially reminded every day that this is a "historically Christian country"? Do I, simply in general, want the national entity I identify myself with to officially endorse a bunch of beliefs I think are hooey? And, as minor as these things are, there's simply no good pragmatic reason not to change it other than the fact that it would upset a bunch of Christians who have even less real reason to complain, but happen to be more numerous and hold more political power.

And... yeah, PM me or something if you feel inclined to go further on this.


    Originally posted by DMC
    "Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

    Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

    DMC





I don't really understand what Debaser said but I agree with him.

- Santa Sangre
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#29 Posted on
A couple of things, the Supreme Court won't overturn this ruling. They won't have to. The 9th district will overturn its own ruling within 45 days (the ruling is on hold).

The admendment stating "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is meant to protect religion from Government, not the other way around.

The ruling will be overturned on the grounds that no one is forced to say the Pledge. In fact, the LAW in California states that you can not be forced to recite the Pledge. The fact that you may be forced to "hear" it is irrelevent. Everyone else is simply exercising their freedom to speech. We all are forced to hear things we don't agree with. We still have no right to shut that person up. As far as endorsements of beliefs, the Constitution is the document that this country is founded on, and it's whole document of beliefs. That doesn't have 100% agreement either, but if had to have 100% agreement on everything, we would have nothing. I'm tired of people who someone how believe they have the right to never hear anything that they may find offensive. Of course, you have every right not to listen.

(I also find if funny how some people are worried about forcing a handful of kids to doing something or hearing something they don't think they should. But the solution to the problem is forcing the other bigger sections to do something else other than what they want to do)

(edited by ges7184 on 27.6.02 1628)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05

    Originally posted by DMC
    "Um... I hope you were just being inprecise. Most people who complain about these things don't want to remove "all expressions of faith", simply all state sponsored expressions of faith. I mean if you, as a private citizen want to hang a sign on your roof that says "Jesus Saves", then bully for you. If you want to have prayer in a privately funded Catholic school, than wonderful. But, ideally, the government shouldn't be dealing in these matters."

    Before CRZ or Guru kills us both, can you just answer *why*? If the Founders were not against government expressions of faith in America, why should we be? Do these things *really* make atheists feel like second class citizens? As others have been pointing out, you don't *have* to recite the pledge in school. Personally, if I was an atheist who was secure in my beliefs, I wouldn't *care* if coins said "In God We Trust," I would just see my fellow Americans as ignorant believers in fairy tales and go on with my day. In just the same way, as a Christian, if our coins suddenly said "In Allah we trust," as long as I would not being forced to accept Islam, I would just go on my way believing what I believe and instead of bringing up these stupid issues, trying to force people to "make me more comfortable" in my Christianity, I would instead spend that time dialoguing with my fellow Americans as to why I accept Christianity as true over Islam. Are the atheists involved in this court case too afraid to do that?

    DMC



in my expereince, GOD is used for the christian or "white" religions. the religions that started in europe. If one was going to refer to another "God", they use the proper name; Allah, Bhudda, Foley...and so on

TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator".

As with each passing generation, the "old values" are moved to the way side and "new values" are emerging. 50 years ago, no one thought that splitting one's tounge would be cool. I know 3 people that are dying to get their tounges split.

times change, and society change. Slavery is outlawed, and eventually the "religion-ness" of the goverment will be toned-down and this whole "under god" and "in god we trust" will dissappear...




"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black

"Yeah, fuck you E.T. you ungrateful dick." -BigDaddyLoco 5/20/2

"MAY PRE HOUSE THE SEAMY SIDE VOLITATION!!!" Warning from a "Flying Goku" Dragon Ball Z toy

"I'm her sugar momma, which is ok, because I'm her sister." Connie French, and the funniest thing one of my customers has ever said to me
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 10 days
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by ges7184
    The ruling will be overturned on the grounds that no one is forced to say the Pledge. In fact, the LAW in California states that you can not be forced to recite the Pledge.


Nobody would be forced to say a prayer if we had that in school. But we don't. Because it is state endorsement of prayer, which we cannot have.


    ges7184
    We all are forced to hear things we don't agree with. We still have no right to shut that person up. As far as endorsements of beliefs, the Constitution is the document that this country is founded on, and it's whole document of beliefs. That doesn't have 100% agreement either, but if had to have 100% agreement on everything, we would have nothing. I'm tired of people who someone how believe they have the right to never hear anything that they may find offensive. Of course, you have every right not to listen.

    (I also find if funny how some people are worried about forcing a handful of kids to doing something or hearing something they don't think they should. But the solution to the problem is forcing the other bigger sections to do something else other than what they want to do)

    (edited by ges7184 on 27.6.02 1628)



But you see, just because we put up with problems elsewhere is not justification for a problem here. By that logic, nobody should ever be allowed to press charges for anything because, hey shit happens. Deal.

People have every right to do or say what ever they want as long as it does not impede on the rights of others. I have a right to be governed by a body that does not endorse something that is religious in nature.

And the word "God," regardless of its origins, disregards those who don't believe in any "god", so there.

The thing about our Constitution's "endorsements", they are endorsing ideas entirely political, which is afterall a government's responsibility.



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3288 days
Last activity: 3282 days
#32 Posted on
"TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator"."

I'm not saying that the Founders were all-out religious pluralists, but they were Enlightenment men who understood there were other religions out there and even in American at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. After all, they *could* have made it say "In Christ We Trust," but they didn't. Moreover, as I attempted to point out earlier, America *can* be seen as a Christian country, so I see no problem in allowing for these modest types of religious expression in our government. Excuse me for being blunt, but if it "bothers" some people, so what? Since when can any society not "bother" some type of element within it?

DMC



"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 16 hours
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05

    Originally posted by DMC
    "TO ME, this is an endorsement that AMERICA is a Christian country. Don't try and tell me that the founding fathers were trying to recognise Allah & Bhudda with the use of "Creator"."

    I'm not saying that the Founders were all-out religious pluralists, but they were Enlightenment men who understood there were other religions out there and even in American at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. After all, they *could* have made it say "In Christ We Trust," but they didn't. Moreover, as I attempted to point out earlier, America *can* be seen as a Christian country, so I see no problem in allowing for these modest types of religious expression in our government. Excuse me for being blunt, but if it "bothers" some people, so what? Since when can any society not "bother" some type of element within it?

    DMC



but, just because there are religons, the point to all this is that "UNDER GOD" is forced on us who do not beleave in any religion at all, and our views are just as valid as those who have religion...

i know i'm going to watch what my local and national leaders say about this subject and those for the ban will get my vote...



"If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black

"Yeah, fuck you E.T. you ungrateful dick." -BigDaddyLoco 5/20/2

"MAY PRE HOUSE THE SEAMY SIDE VOLITATION!!!" Warning from a "Flying Goku" Dragon Ball Z toy

"I'm her sugar momma, which is ok, because I'm her sister." Connie French, and the funniest thing one of my customers has ever said to me
Swordsman Yen
Frankfurter








Since: 16.2.02
From: Shaolin

Since last post: 3750 days
Last activity: 3734 days
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
From the desk of Swordsman Yen
And now, the new Pledge of Allegiance that won't offend anybody...

"I pledge allegiance...for all."



Who are you calling BROTHER, brother?
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by rikidozan
    i know i'm going to watch what my local and national leaders say about this subject and those for the ban will get my vote...
So you're not voting, then? :)



©CRZ™
Visit [slash] wrestling
Eddie Famous
Andouille








Since: 11.12.01
From: Catlin IL

Since last post: 147 days
Last activity: 141 days
#36 Posted on

    Originally posted by DMC
    I'm not a Jefferson scholar, but I wouldn't say it is totally true that Jefferson had absolutely no problem with slavery. I believe he understood it as a problem and realized the dilema between what he wrote in the Declaration and the fact that he owned slaves. He was simply a very complex man, as you can imagine.



Did he have a dilemma about fathering children with his slaves?



George Washington gave his signature
The Government gave its hand
They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land

"As long as the moon shall rise"
"As long as the rivers flow"
"As long as the sun will shine"
"As long as the grass shall grow"


ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 13 days
Last activity: 23 hours
#37 Posted on

    by Bucs Fan
    And the word "God," regardless of its origins, disregards those who don't believe in any "god", so there


And this ruling disregards those who DO believe in any "God". What's the difference (except you are disregarding even MORE people to regard the beliefs of a few)?

And I don't know what they do around here in schools (well, they probably still have a moment of silence), but I do know that they still have prayers at football games here. It's done by students, as they exercise their freedom of speech. Now, I don't really care if someone prays at a game or not. I'm not even sure why they have prayers at football games. But I do know it's important to a lot of people, and I'm not going to disregard their right to do it. I don't think I, nor anyone else, has a right not to hear it, or anything else for that matter. (And I don't think it's a problem, like you seem to. You seem to equate with robbery or murder. I'm not sure I follow the logic.)
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 10 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42

    Originally posted by ges7184
    And this ruling disregards those who DO believe in any "God". What's the difference (except you are disregarding even MORE people to regard the beliefs of a few)?

    And I don't know what they do around here in schools (well, they probably still have a moment of silence), but I do know that they still have prayers at football games here. It's done by students, as they exercise their freedom of speech. Now, I don't really care if someone prays at a game or not. I'm not even sure why they have prayers at football games. But I do know it's important to a lot of people, and I'm not going to disregard their right to do it. I don't think I, nor anyone else, has a right not to hear it, or anything else for that matter. (And I don't think it's a problem, like you seem to. You seem to equate with robbery or murder. I'm not sure I follow the logic.)



But it's not a school-organized prayer from the sounds of it. When I was in high school, students used to gather around the flagpole in front of the school and say prayers on their own before school. That's fine. Students still have the right to say the pledge. That's fine. But they don't need a state endorsement to do so.

As for comparing it to crimes: a lot of people (not talking just this board) have an attitude of "hey, we all have to tolerate things we don't like. Just deal with it and quit whining." Apply that logic to a criminal case. Why press charges for anything? I mean, we all have bad stuff happen to us, so why complain? That's the vibe a lot of people give me, but they then call the logic silly if I apply it somewhere else.

Something else that really bothers me is that George W. Bush's reason for opposing this ruling seems to be "I'm a religious man, so I have no problem with the word 'god'. It should stay."



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3288 days
Last activity: 3282 days
#39 Posted on
"As for comparing it to crimes: a lot of people (not talking just this board) have an attitude of "hey, we all have to tolerate things we don't like. Just deal with it and quit whining." Apply that logic to a criminal case. Why press charges for anything? I mean, we all have bad stuff happen to us, so why complain? That's the vibe a lot of people give me, but they then call the logic silly if I apply it somewhere else."

The problem is BucsFan, this is exactaly the connection that ges is properly calling into question. How do you show that having the pledge of allegiance said in a classroom is equally unlawful as theft or rape? Or even that certain people are made to feel less human by it, a kin to segregation in Brown vs. Board of Education? You're trying to make this kind of criminal connection but intuitively people are just having a problem with it, even someone who doesn't care for pledges or prayers.

DMC



"You! You're sumthin' you!" -Robert DeNiro, Analyze This
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 10 days
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
Both this and your examples of rape or theft are examples of perceived wrongdoing or intrusion of somebody's rights. The only difference is one is a civil case, one is a criminal case. If going to a criminal case is too big a jump, then compare it to any other civil case. Blacks in the 1950's should have just dealt with the problem instead taking it to court, right? Women don't need sufferage, they should just sit back and not worry about it, right? These are both examples of what were once legal practices being banned because a civil trial led to a new interpretation of the Constitution. Protecting and promoting civil rights (which this is a case of) is just as important as finding and rapist or bank robber.



Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?"
Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"

"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!"
-Norman Smiley

"She is one of them! She's CANADIAN!"
-Stevie Ray
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: A great day in Minnesota....
Next thread: Creamy Goodness from Ann Coulter
Previous thread: The G-8 Summit
(2514 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I thought video footage of catching him in a flat out lie was plenty credible enough. All the violations in the world doesn't change what happened in that video.
- ThreepMe, Rumsfeld: Dirty, Dirty Liar! (2004)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Pledge of Allegiance... Unconstitutional (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.164 seconds.