U.S. Interest Versus Bush's Interest

[Winstonm]

Hey, Jimmy, on this issue of religion - and I'm not trying to speak for others who post here but IMO a lot of us who have trouble with the concept of religion are speaking of organizational religion and not spirituality - there is a significant difference.

 

Spirituality has to do with personal belief and personal relationship with a higher being; religion has to do with man-made interpretations of the will of god; a spiritualist believes this unnecessary as he can receive the will directly from the source with no need for middle man to translate.

 

And this is also not implying that there are no spiritualists within organized religions, but when a religious doctrine is supported without question (and doctrine meaning the man-made interpretations) then you have what might be called a type of ignorance due to lack of investigation - or closing one's mind to any other potentially valid reasoning.

 

It is obvious from your posts, you are not of this type. And I think everyone here respects your religious views more because of that.

[luke warm]

thanks winston... i'm not an overly religious (in the sense you mean it) person, although i do think it's important that christians gather together, mainly for edification purposes... it's the nature of things that this gathering together is done from within the framework of religious custom... in any case, i'm pretty sure not all christians would agree with all i have to say on the subject, and i'd be disappointed if they did

[Winstonm]

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues.

 

BeBop:

 

This I think is an accurate statement; however, have you considered the reason for the unwavering resolution is due to the nature of the Wesleyan theology of "salvation/hellfire-brimstone" that is the heart of so many protestant religions and leads to a black and white world view? You are either saved or you burn in hell - You are either with us or with the terrorists - do you see any connection?

 

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

 

A world view based on faith is not a house built on granite, nor even sand, but only the thinnest of stands of hope that if ever broken leads to chaos within the self.

 

And clinging to a delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary can only be defined as insanity - not stubborn resolve.

[hrothgar]

There is no separation of church and state in the USA.  (BTW, if you find "Separation of church and state" in the USA Constitution I'll pay you money.  Separation of church and state is a misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights that simply forbids the Government to establish a state religion.)

 

The Judicial Branch of the USA has created a state religion. 

 

That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA. 

 

People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA.  It started small but is growing bigger every day.

Bebopkid's assertions about Separation of Church and State are a textbook example of the religious right misinterpretating the US Constitution. Rather than bothering to write my own refutation, I'm simply going to link to the followig URL: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

 

Thats right: Bebopkid's line of argumentation is so cliched that there are multiple web sites already written that refute his thesis.

 

In a similar fashion, his assertions that atheism is the largest religion in the US is completely delusional. The following URL links to the best survey regarding religious identification in the United States. In 2001 when the survey was conducted, the proportion of US citizen that claim no religious self identifcation was a mere 14%

 

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_br...ey_findings.htm

 

I want to make a minor change to my earlier conjecture

 

Option 1: Bebopkid is a troll

Option 2: Bebopkid is completely delusional

 

In either case, he can pretty much be ignored.

[hrothgar]

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

I'm not sure that I agree with this...

 

I make a habit of reading Andrew Sullivan's blog on a daily basis. I don't always agree with Sullivan (hell, I rarely agree with Sullivan), however, he writes well and seems to have a fairly open mind. I think he also has a really ugly self-destructive stream, much like his compatriot Christopher Hitchens, however thats a different story.

 

Sullivan published a book titled "The Conservative Soul" which he has been shilling for almost non-stop. From what I can tell, his central thesis is that true conservatism is defined by doubt and skepticism. Sullivan extend this philosophy to his own religious faith. Here's a representative quote:

 

>If God really is God, then God must, by definition, surpass our human

>understanding. Not entirely. We have Scripture; we have reason;

>we have religious authority; we have our own spiritual experiences

>of the divine. But there is still something we will never grasp, something

>we can never know - because God is beyond our human categories.

>And if God is beyond our categories, then God cannot be captured for

>certain. We cannot know with the kind of surety that allows us to proclaim

>truth with a capital T. There will always be something that eludes us. If

>there weren't, it would not be God.

 

Personally, I have the uncomfortable feeling that Sullivan may be deluding himself. He clings to an illusion of doubt, but ultimately sccumbs to blind faith. However, I haven't completely made up my mind. For anyone seriously interested in this topic, there's a good debate between Sullivan and Sam Harris available at

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

[mike777]

This is really an ongoing discussion in mainline Christianity.

 

God is knowable

God wants us to know him

Ultimately God is unknowable

Blessed are those who have not seen Him but accept Him by faith.

 

Then there are gnostics who believe in hidden knowledge. Not mainline.

 

If all of the above sounds confusing, I agree. I lean more towards God is knowable and wants us to know and understand him.

[mike777]

As for the Sullivan debate, it appears they use the term fundamental religion and the danger it poses. I note Joe Lieberman in a recent article thought this was a great and personal danger to his family.

 

I continue to disagree, the problem is radical, not fundamental religion.

But then I find the future of tech after 2050 scary too. ;).

[Impact]

From a different nation and continent, notwithstanding travelling and living in USA for a year, I always discounted the references to religious zealots as representing only 10-15% of US population.

 

That was based on living in Manhattan, and even when travelling tending to mix with professionals (not bridge players), and avoiding social solecisms such as the discussion of religion.

 

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

Dawkins (THe Selfish Gene etc) is an eminent (perhaps pre-eminent) biologist and his training in that area and expansion on Darwinian theory is well-written. By contrast, his refutation of criticism made of him, tends towards being precious and/or carping.

 

I was familiar with the logic of the position he advocates - and perhaps it was alittle like "preaching to the converted" in part but my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.

 

Returning to the original point, what did come as a surprise to me was Dawkins' indication of just how religious (at least in terms of both espousing a stated religion and the degree of credence given to say creationism) the US appeared to him.

 

Again, I accept the fact that Dawkins had an axe to grind and is not a completely disinterested observer, but if the figures he cites are remotely accurate, i am concerned.

 

In Oz, no enquiry is made of church-going habits of politicians unless they volunteer it themselves.

 

By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!

 

It is not necessarily that we are more atheistic (albeit we probably are) but that there is a healthy scepticism if not cynicism in the Oz citizen that does not believe that any God would take such direct interest in politics, and the certainty of conviction to amount to absolute faith is frightening!

 

regards

[mike777]

"By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!"

 

 

You are joking of course, many countries outside of Europe do this, even Chavez in South America. See India, Africa, South America, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

 

Yes funny enough the USA is considered the most church going country in the world, who would have thunk.

 

In any event I think if Oz land allowed more immigrants from its very near neighbor it would be much more religious. Instead it seems to fear them and shut them out from a land that is water poor but land rich.

[Winstonm]

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Feb 8 2007, 04:18 AM)

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith. 

 

 

I'm not sure that I agree with this...

 

I did not spell out well what I meant - it was intended to be in keeping with the concept of indoctrination by Weleyan theology, of a wrathful and punishing god, everlasting torture, and salvation.

 

What I was trying to say is that if you are indoctrinated thoroughly in the Wesleyan doctrine in the early years of life up through early adulthood, you do not form a concept of self other than one of being unfit for the kingdom of heaven - and if you are unfit, you will burn for eternity in fire and brimstone - and the only thing that can make you worthy is repentence and salvation. So your only self image is constantly teetering on the brink of eternal damnation. If that faith is cracked, there is nothing left of a self-image, as a real and positive self image has been destroyed - without that faith there is only a void - the faith actually defines and becomes the person - they are inseperable. It is the faith in this ideology that I tried to show. I am not speaking here of moderate religious groups, but the hard core evangelicals that attempt to frighten into conversion.

 

That's why I said no room for doubt - it is black and white - and so is the world view.

 

I hope I said this better this time around.

[Impact]

"By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!"

 

 

You are joking of course, many countries outside of Europe do this, even Chavez in South America. See India, Africa, South America, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

 

Yes funny enough the USA is considered the most church going country in the world, who would have thunk.

 

In any event I think if Oz land allowed more immigrants from its very near neighbor it would be much more religious. Instead it seems to fear them and shut them out from a land that is water poor but land rich.

Mike,

 

The comment was not joking but drawing out the difference in the attitude of the electorate between Oz & US - yet both countries with overwhelming migrant population and real smorgasboards (ours is AT LEAST as diverse as US - albeit from a smaller base as our total population is only a little over 20.7 million) with English culture and legal systems.

 

OTOH we originally got the convicts and you got the puritans - so who got lucky?

 

regards

[mike777]

Teetering on the brink of damnation? Unfit??

 

 

Are you saying that is mainline Methodist?

 

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

 

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?

If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

[hrothgar]

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

 

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?

If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

I really don't understand your logic here. Its perfectly possible to believe

 

1. The US is full of religious fanatics

2. Unlimited immigration from Indonesia into Australia is a bad idea

 

In what way does the second point invalidate the first? I'll note in passing that your last post seems to responding to post Winston and to Impact, both of whom seem to be commenting on different subjects.

 

BTW. I was just over in Oz a couple years back. The Aussies (appear) to have a much more sensible immigration policy that does the US these days. Moreover, the country seems to have a very real appreciation that it future depends much more on integration with Asia and the Pacific its position as a member of the British Commonwealth or as a European colonial outpost. There are certainly limits regarding the number of immigrants that are accepted into the country. However, my impressions is that these limits have less to do with cultural differences and more to do with ideas about to the carrying capacity of the country. (You know... all that environmental crap that you seem to mock all the time)

 

Australia certainly has its problems. There have been some well publicized race riots between white supremicists and muslim fundamentalists. However, these are especially notable because they represent a major change. Its hard to know which set of idiots is more to blame. The fundamentalist muslims who fear the fact that their children are integrating into Austrlalian society or the Howard loving fascists whole thrive on the whole clash of civilizations model that you so love.

[akhare]

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

Dawkins (THe Selfish Gene etc) is an eminent (perhaps pre-eminent) biologist and his training in that area and expansion on Darwinian theory is well-written.

I completely agree w/ the observations about the book. I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, but was initially leery of reading the book because I thought it might be too strident.

 

However, it does make for some pretty compelling reading -- not that the readers of the book will be swayed one way or the other :D.

[mike777]

I thought his last book was a repeat of his brilliant ideas of decades ago...and a call for worldwide crusade.

 

Dawkins has one of the brightest minds of our generation. I do not agree with his politics but.....he is brilliant in the extreme sense of the word.

 

 

ok Richard, surprise we agree to disagree, I found the impact of Muslim migration more intolerant and less a matter of too little water, as I pointed out. Your visit was different from mine. :D

[Impact]

As for OZ land, my impression from speaking to citizens there is that Indonesia is not welcome.....not welcome in the extreme sense of that word.....100+ million to 20 million?

 

As I asked them why not have 20 million Muslims and change the culture?

If France and other countries are going to a more Muslim culture why not Oz land or the usa?

I really don't understand your logic here.

***I HAVE TO AGREE WITH RICHARD, AND ASSUME THAT MIKE IS TROLLING OR BEING SARCASTIC.

 

Its perfectly possible to believe

 

1. The US is full of religious fanatics

2. Unlimited immigration from Indonesia into Australia is a bad idea

 

In what way does the second point invalidate the first? I'll note in passing that your last post seems to responding to post Winston and to Impact, both of whom seem to be commenting on different subjects.

 

BTW. I was just over in Oz a couple years back. The Aussies (appear) to have a much more sensible immigration policy that does the US these days. Moreover, the country seems to have a very real appreciation that it future depends much more on integration with Asia and the Pacific its position as a member of the British Commonwealth or as a European colonial outpost. There are certainly limits regarding the number of immigrants that are accepted into the country. However, my impressions is that these limits have less to do with cultural differences and more to do with ideas about to the carrying capacity of the country. (You know... all that environmental crap that you seem to mock all the time)

 

*** OZ AND USA HAPPEN TO BE THE 2 MOST SOUGHT-AFTER DESTINATIONS FOR MIGRANTS.

OZ HAPPENS TO BE AN ISLAND-CONTINENT AND ACCORDINGLY DOES NOT SHARE LAND BORDERS WITH ANY OTHER NATION.

THE CITIZENS OF OZ TAKE THE VIEW THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE BOTH THE NUMBER OF MIGRANTS AND THE ORIGIN OF THOSE MIGRANTS (notwithstanding the existence of a vocal minority which is unrealistic and would allow as many who want to come to be present). WHY WOULD WE SEEK TO IMPORT PROBLEMS THAT WE DON'T HAVE JUST BECAUSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO COME TO OZ ( as opposed to genuine refugees, but effectively the only countries for whom we are the closest port of call are Papua new Guinea, Indonesia/Timor and New Zealand). WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT WE DON'T WANT SHARIA LAW OR VARIOUS OTHER MATTERS - AND ANYONE WHO WANTS TO COME TO OZ HAS TO ACCEPT THAT IT IS UP TO THEM TO FIT IN WITH US (at least initially).

 

Australia certainly has its problems. There have been some well publicized race riots between white supremicists and muslim fundamentalists. However, these are especially notable because they represent a major change.

***CLASSIC CASE OF MISREPORTING: THE SO-CALLED RACE RIOT AT CRONULLA WAS A JOKE COMPARED WITH RIOTS IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD: NO ONE KILLED, VIRTUALLY NO PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ONLY A FEW INJURED. THE CAUSE WAS AS MUCH A MEDIA BEAT-UP AS ANYTHING ELSE, BUT SERVED TO HIGHLIGHT A POTENTIAL PROBLEM. IT WAS SO UNTOWARD FOR OZ THAT IT MADE HEADLINES AND OIPINION WRITERS EXAGGERATED IT OUT OF ALL IMPORTANCE - EACH OF COURSE TO SUPPORT HIS OWN CONTENTION!

 

Its hard to know which set of idiots is more to blame. The fundamentalist muslims who fear the fact that their children are integrating into Austrlalian society or the Howard loving fascists

***RICHARD, METHINKS YOUR RHETORIC HAS OVERCOME THE REALITY. IT IS CURRENTLY PERCEIVED WISDOM TO DENIGRATE HOWARD AS A MATTER OF COURSE - PARTICULARLY AMONG THE THE INTELLIGENTSIA, AND THE HOWARD-HATERS ARE STRONG BECAUSE HE HAS TAKEN SO MUCH OF THE MIDDLE GROUND WITHOUT ACCORDING THEM AND THEIR HOBBYHORSES, GRATIFICATION AND HONOUR.

I AM SURE THERE IS A RATBAG OR FASCIST ELEMENT IN OZ (LEAGUE OF RIGHTS IS THE FASCIST PARTY SUPPORTED BY AUSTRALIANS AGAINST FURTHER IMMIGRATION) BUT THESE PARTIES REGULARLY POLL UNDER 3%. HOWARD IS THE LEADER OF THE LIBERAL PARTY (conservative as opposed to the Labour left) but that Liberal party would still sit well to the left of the Democrats in the US!

 

whole thrive on the whole clash of civilizations model that you so love.

see below

[mike777]

As I have posted many times before I am for a rather liberal(open) migration policy per the the hated WSJ :D

 

Ya I dislike trying to get a job or promotion from all those super smart, harder working guys as anyone....:)

[Impact]

I happen to be in favour of immigration - but we have a real issue of sustainability in terms of both the infrastructure in the country and, inter alia, water resources.

 

If I wanted to live in a country of 300 million I would go there.

 

With due respect, my single greatest criticism of "Americans" (a generalisation) is their parochial nature and assumption that everything echoes their own country - and if it doesn't that is aberrant.

 

It is normal to compare with that with which you are familiar, but not to immediately assume that different is wrong - albeit not suiting you.

 

A little bit more knowledge of the existing circumstances in other countries would not go astray.

As a country of only nearly 21million a long way removed from elsewhere, Australians tend to be much more outward-looking and well-travelled. We don't have the option of pretending that we are the centre of the universe - although the occasional politician still has delusions (of adequacy).

[mike777]

I think I have mentioned the water problem several times......

 

Just a matter of tech...

 

Need cheap, clean water in great amounts.

 

Why not let some young Muslim genius solve it and make millions?

Ok provacitive

[helene_t]

Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant.

Let's consider an ignorant. It could be someone who doesn't know what's right and what's wrong, or someone who doesn't know how the Universe, plants, animals and humans came into being, or someone who doesn't know how to account for sentience in terms of neurophysiology.

 

1) First solution (refuge?) could be: "Some authority (science teacher, priest, parents, best friend, whoever) told me that ...."

 

2) Second solution/refuge: "My own reasoning/experiments/spiritual expirience/whatever tells me that ...."

 

3) Third solution/refuge: "I don't care what the real truth is and if the question makes any sense at all at a deep filosophical level. But in my present situation, it seems a reasonable working hypothesis that ....."

 

Only 3) is still ignorant, and has thus chosen a refuge rather than a solution. 2) could still be ignorant, depending on the realibility of the authority, and the second could be ignorant, depending on the correctness of the reasoning.

 

Intellectual progress depends on our ability to combine 1) and 2) in the right proportions. With 1 alone, ancient knowledge (which was often wrong in the first place) will decay as in the "Chinese wispers" game. Religious scriptures are extreme examples of that. The "the-Inuits-have-XXX-words-for-snow" hox is another example. With 2 alone, each individual and each generation will have to start from scratch.

 

I personally value 3) a lot. While I consider moral and cultural relativism to be way off, some flexibility (especially intellectual flexibilyty) is necesary in a pluralistic and fast-changing World. And if there are things that I can't know, I strongly prefer to admit my ignorance to pretending some knowledge. Case in point: I do understand Darwinism, but I don't understand cosmology. So if you challenge my atheistic World view by asking me how the Universe came into being, my answer is "I have no idea, and that doesn't bother me".

[jikl]

Not going to bother quoting anyone...

 

Australia is a poor example to use, sure we have the same land area as USA (not including Hawaii and Alaska). However the USA is a goldmine of arable land compared to Australia. The main problem for Australia and immigration is the fact we need to be able to support the people that live here. Water is a problem that can be overcome, but only with a small increase in population but would be very expensive (desalination plants etc). Food is a far greater problem, given that most of this country/continent/island is desert, where exactly is the food going to come from? Given most of Australia has been in crippling drought for over 10 years, where is the water going to come from for the food? Some reservoirs for major cities are now down under 25% capacity. What are you asking of this country, we import all water and food so we can hold more people? Good way to destroy the country financially. Our only real resource is mining whilst the drought has it in its grip, a FINITE resource. So to take on too many would cripple the country for generations. A far better solution is a very careful immigration policy. Also, we have a skills shortage as many of our best and brightest move overseas for better prospects. so therefore there is a natural choice for people with skills immigrating to this country.

 

So whilst some of the examples given about Australia had some merit, most were in ignorance.

 

Sean

 

PS: And no I am not a card-carrying member of the Liberal party etc

[Al_U_Card]

I lean more towards God is knowable and wants us to know and understand him.

Since we all contain that divine spark, knowing our divinity is to know ourselves. The ultimate connection results in absolute resolution.

[Al_U_Card]

my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.

This is indeed an interesting sidebar. At issue is the apparently "brainwashed" attitude that a lot of people seem to have about the "New Testament". Its origins (is fabrication a better term?) with the Synod of Nicea. The selection of the 4 "Gospels" omitting and avoiding the eleven or so apocryphal gospels that refuted many Christian "ethics" like no reincarnation or included many "confusing" aspects of the Nazareen's life story as remembered and recounted many times, long after the fact. Christianity's reconstruction from a Hebraic splinter group to a "universal" faith. The more you know.......

[helene_t]

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.[.....]

I was familiar with the logic of the position he advocates - and perhaps it was alittle like "preaching to the converted" in part but my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.[.....]

Returning to the original point, what did come as a surprise to me was Dawkins' indication of just how religious (at least in terms of both espousing a stated religion and the degree of credence given to say creationism) the US appeared to him.

I second that observation. When I bought the book I expected it to rephrase what he wrote about religion in his other books. But "The God Delusion" is, actually, an important book.

[BebopKid]

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues.

 

BeBop:

 

This I think is an accurate statement; however, have you considered the reason for the unwavering resolution is due to the nature of the Wesleyan theology of "salvation/hellfire-brimstone" that is the heart of so many protestant religions and leads to a black and white world view? You are either saved or you burn in hell - You are either with us or with the terrorists - do you see any connection?

 

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

 

A world view based on faith is not a house built on granite, nor even sand, but only the thinnest of stands of hope that if ever broken leads to chaos within the self.

 

And clinging to a delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary can only be defined as insanity - not stubborn resolve.

I believe I did not expound fully enough.

 

[Opinion here]

I find that people of strong faith generally do not waver on issues. People of strong faith are open and non-judgemental. People of strong faith do stand fast in convictions.

 

Now on the topic of decisions. People of strong faith make decisions, just like anyone else. Sometimes they are wrong. If facts turn out contrary to what they believed, they admit it. They say they were wrong. They make new decisions. They don't, however, base all decisions on polls and popular opinion.

[Opinion stops]

 

I'm still waiting for the evidence of crimes committed by the White House as espoused eariler in this topic. I'm still waiting for evidence that taking a dictator out of power--a dictator who committed war crimes, mass murder, mass rape, and other crimes against humanity--is illegal. I'm still waiting for evidence that the White House condoned torture, when all the reports of torture are being investigated with some of the instigators being court-marshalled.

 

I've read lots of opinions that say illegal things have happened. I've yet to read a fact that proves any it. Saying something is so doesn't make it so.

 

If you cite facts that these things have happened, then I'll admit that you are right. Until then, I am waiting for facts.

 

Show me this overwhelming evidence you speak of.

 

Also, I appreciate all who have insulted me. It proves my point. When you can't come up with an argument to back up your opinions then insult people who don't agree with you.

 

Bravo.