posted
It occurs to me that when a religion seizes the reins of secular power it has the effect of ending the power of “Faith’ within the religion. If the religion is ‘Faith Based’ this represents the end of that churches era of truth and marks the beginning of the rise of hypocrisy. This comes about as a result of two common human traits.
The first trait that creates the Cabal of Hypocrisy at the top of a hierarchical religious authority is the reward of power for the appearance of piety. Power attracts the Corruptible. Those that wish to master others to satisfy that character flaw first need to master the appearance and forms of piety, this creates a growing group at the top that is actually suspicious and hostile to those with real piety. Fear of the secular power of the church also creates a false piety effect in the congregation where failing to follow the doctrine of the church brings punishment, they too are forced into focusing on the appearance piety rather then their Faith.
The second very human tendency that corrupts the Faith of a Church in Temporal Authority attacks even the most innocent members, the simple Faith of children. As a child grows into his relationship with authority and God it is natural for him to cast first his father, then later a religious figure, and still later the Church in the role. By the time a child is ready to distinguish temporal power with religious trappings in its many forms from a divinity he is old enough to worship out of fear or lust for power.
Two historical cases of this are Catholicism which is still struggling to recover from its stint as the secular power in Europe and recover its religious force as a mystery based faith. Its reputation and the power of its priesthood is still compromised by the political power that lead to its era of hypocrisy. The second historical example is the case OSC pointed to at the end of Children of the Mind, when Shinto and Bushido created a Hypocrisy of Piety at the top of the Japanese High Command that lead them into suicidal warfare beyond all reason. It was the Atom Bombs role in that madness that actually gave them the chance to save enough face to surrender. Shinto and Bushido have been reborn outside secular authority and like Catholic Christianity it has regained its place as a spiritual force with the return of its identity as a mystery and Faith.
This lesson gives insight into the truth about the Theocracies of Islam, in that they do not represent an aggregate of the faithful to any degree. They inevitably represent a Hypocrisy and corruption of the Faith they claim as their root. It is Secular Democracy with a core tenant of Separation of Church and State which creates an environment in which Faith can return to religion. It is only when virtue is its own reward that religion becomes a strong backbone for society. Of course if a Religion has at its core a doctrine of Civil Authority then it is at its core inevitably corrupt and cannot be counted among the Religions of Faith. It cannot foster Faith, it cannot separate Faith from a reward system and in the end it cannot tolerate real Faith that might shame the Hypocrites in power.
In modern times we have seen the surviving religions yield civil authority to Democratic systems and grow richer because of it. Even if certain tenants of the Religion had to be recast or allowed to fall away, this has proven to be a boon to the Faithful. Since Islam has never been anything but the central political authority in its history, the forcible shift of the Arab States to Democracy represents the birth of Islam as a Faith rather then the death.
Those who describe the generosity of Islam including Christianity and Judaism as Great Faiths fail to see that this is a sham attempt to be included among the Religions of Faith when it lacks the core substance of Faith at all. With Freedom of Religion in the Middle East, Islam may indeed become a Faith, it is my hope that for the sake of the people there, who may one day reap the benefits of Faith, this comes to pass.
posted
BC, how do you feel that the (perceived or real) rise of the Religious Right in the US, in part embodied by the current president, fits into your thesis?
posted
In the absence of Church control of Government people can only vote their personal conscience. Since this is much more likely in a Democracy to be based on true Faith rather then the fear of reprisal or threat from a hierarchy, the rise of the Religious Right in the United States can be seen as a triumph of individual Faith and personal conscience.
It is indicative that the Right spreads across many Religions with a common conscience on several issues. I think this may be the flowering of Faith within the culture of the United States.
If this makes certain religious issues significant political issues then this certainly shows that the end of Theocracy does not end Faith based morality in the conscience of a Democratic Nation. (One thing that many feared, throwing out the baby with the bathwater...)
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since Islam has never been anything but the central political authority in its history --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
India would be fascinated to hear this.
India has enjoyed so much Peace as a result of Failure to submit to Muslim Authority, their best friend and neighbor Pakistan freely admits the power of India over the Muslim within India, and they for their part love the Hindu majority...
posted
Well, some of them love the Hindu majority. Others of them had some significant problems with disenfranchisement in the late 80s and became violent militants (see: Kashmir).
The main point, however, is that many of your statements are directly contradicted by history. The statement about Islam never having been anything but the central political authority was just some of the easiest pickings, for being so absolutely silly.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It occurs to me that when a religion seizes the reins of secular power it has the effect of ending the power of “Faith’ within the religion. If the religion is ‘Faith Based’ this represents the end of that churches era of truth and marks the beginning of the rise of hypocrisy.
I'm not sure how to reconcile your thesis with what you go on to write. You seem to be making the argument that religions with secular power are not, and cannot, be true to their faith. However, when you speak about Christrianity and Islam, you speak of the former as though it is a true Faith-based religion and the latter as though it is a front to maintain secular power. If this is what you are arguing, doesn't that simply mean that Islam has fallen for the first trap of religion, and Christianity the second? (By "trap," I mean the failings you describe in your thesis, 2nd, and 3rd paragraphs.)
It doesn't seem to me that you leave a way out for any religion to be truly genuine.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you place Communisism in the religion doctrine, you get another point in your thesis favor, as the Communists of the Soviet Union often sang the dogmatic songs and quoted the appropriate commrade rich phrases even as they marched off to the black market.
Then there are the Capitalists. Several high ranking capitalists play publically to the lines about ultimate justice and power of Free Markets, all the while striving to corrupt, bribe, and "capture" those markets using often illegal tactics.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christianity in the form of Catholicism fell into and was freed from the trap by the rise of Democracy and the Separation of Church from State, Islam has never been free of it. I do not condemn the need for a Church to have an internal Hierarchy, even the Cub Scouts has to organize itself, but absolute power in a State is another thing.
Truly if Islam has ever been anything but a secular political animal I have never encountered a record of it. It started to create a political block and that block has grown every since with total societal control in place or as a goal. It has been beaten back, it has failed to achieve its ends, it has fractured within itself, but it has never been about Faith untied to Secular Power.
quote: I'm not sure how to reconcile your thesis with what you go on to write. You seem to be making the argument that religions with secular power are not, and cannot, be true to their faith.
I am saying that no religion in secular power can create true faith in its followers. All seeming Faith becomes tainted by self interest, greed, lust for power or fear.
No Doctrine is free from Hypocrisy, if there is an incentive there will be a cheat.
Faith based acts however, even if based on belief in reward or punishment in the afterlife they still represent a different category then any activity that brings and immediate reward.
Since the belief in the afterlife itself is Faith, this is action with no concrete reward but Faith itself, so it is still altruism and creates a fabric of goodness that binds society together.
The tendency for corrupt individuals to seek any available power niches is exactly the thing that destroys the possibility of Faith in any Theocracy.
posted
I think you're misunderstanding me. In your writing, you describe two possible failures of religion. You then go on to argue that Islam falls victim to the first failure, that is, it's a theocracy. To become a true religion it must strive to make Faith (I'm unsure as to how that's different from plain old faith) it's priority. But in your thesis, you claim that Faith Based religions suffer from their own failing, specifically, hypocrisy.
Why should Islam seek to become that kind of religion, and why are other religions superior for being that way?
EDIT Hang on. Are you basically saying that, while faith based religions have their problems, they're better than a theocracy? If so, that's fine, but I think you then have to make the case that hypocrisy is better than theocracy. And I'm not sure that arguing that the promise of an afterlife is actually a form of altruism is the way to go about it.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the belief in the afterlife itself is Faith, this is action with no concrete reward but Faith itself, so it is still altruism and creates a fabric of goodness that binds society together.
Also, what about the thousands of Islamic terrorists who believe in something similar to what you describe here?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am afraid that while I have twice reread what I wrote trying to figure out how you came to misunderstand it to the degree that you have I cannot.
Faith based religion is not Hypocrisy, it falls victim to Hypocrisy when the power at stake becomes attractive enough to those who are drawn to positions of power over others... Individuals with a will to dominate others (Clear so far?)
quote: Hang on. Are you basically saying that, while faith based religions have their problems, they're better than a theocracy? If so, that's fine, but I think you then have to make the case that hypocrisy is better than theocracy. And I'm not sure that arguing that the promise of an afterlife is actually a form of altruism is the way to go about it.
I am making the case that hypocrisy is inevitable in the case of Theocracy based on any religion that is supposedly Faith based. Faith dissolves when religion becomes the Government (Theocracy) You then have a religion where membership is a path to power, a protection from persecution, a source of prestige or an opportunity to achieve domination of others.
posted
Bear with me. I'm slow, but I think I get your arguent now.
First things first. Will you admit that in a theocracy, at least SOME people can have genuine faith?
If so, would you say that the failures of a theocratic religion impinge upon the righteousness of the true believers?
Do/should the acts of hypocritical believers affect true believers in a non-theotratic condition in the US? For example, in your view, do Phelps and the other Westboro nutcases damage Christianity's position as a true faith?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: First things first. Will you admit that in a theocracy, at least SOME people can have genuine faith?
Not at all, anybody in a Theocracy has their potential for Faith tainted by the social sticks and carrots. In the absence of freedom of choice there is no real Faith in the unknowable, their is an imperative to believe that cannot help taint any belief.
quote:Do/should the acts of hypocritical believers affect true believers in a non-theocratic condition in the US?
If a Hypocritical Believer is in a position of undue influence over the choices of a potential believer then that potential believer is incapable of Faith. Once free of the influence Faith is possible. Since few situations exist where the full force of the State can be brought to bear on a potential Believer, the chance for that person to have an opportunity to find true faith is pretty well assured.
posted
Hmm. This might be an Interesting Discussion, but I find myself much more Fascinated by BC's discovery of Capital Letters. Do you think he has been Reading AA Milner?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's it, continue posting as though one of your most basic points was obviously factually incorrect.
Maybe no one will notice. You clearly do not have much Faith in Your Arguments, to refuse to Address any Questioning of them which is Inconvenient to your Truth.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:anybody in a Theocracy has their potential for Faith tainted by the social sticks and carrots.
quote:no religion in secular power can create true faith in its followers
quote: Islam has never been free of it.
- Where a religion is not free from central political authority, faith does not actually exist within it. - It's impossible, in fact - Islam has 'never been free' from central political authority.
The Islamic faith does not exist? Islam is a sociopolitical bloc only?
quote: That's it, continue posting as though one of your most basic points was obviously factually incorrect.
Why would anyone do that?
quote: The Islamic faith does not exist? Islam is a sociopolitical bloc only?
A succinct brief, and correct save only in the case of practitioners of the faith in populations integrated into a State where Islam is not in control and where it is not trying to seize control (a minority political machine, a terrorist block etc.)
I have trouble visualizing a non Democratic state where this can happen, but I suppose a benevolent secular government of any type, even a monarchy, where freedom of religion is protected could produce true Faithful Muslims.
So often Muslims seem to look back to the Middle East for spiritual inspiration and direction when, if Faith is to be the guiding light and salvation of this Group, the inspiration can only be found in the true piety, and freedom to choose a relationship with God, that exists in the West.
After all, the traditions of Democracy and Freedom of Religion came out of Pagan cultures, they just produced a fertile ground where Christianity could grow. In time Christianity choked itself to anemia on that growth by becoming the political power block, until those important traditions (freedom of Religion, Democracy) where rediscovered, pruning the power of the Church and allowing within it the return of the flower of Faith.
So too might Muslims become people of Faith if they embrace Religious freedom and choice. The possibility for true Muslims exists only to the extent that they are willing to embrace a secular government that places no pressure on what religion each individual practices and offers no special incentive for any religious group.
posted
It sounds like BC is basically expanding on the ideas OSC presented in one of the Shadow books, or maybe it was a World Watch essay.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this thread, I don't think he's the one being mean. I think the implicit arguments within the first are the core problems with the hypothesis (a few have been pointed out), but he's approaching this much more fair-handedly than I've seen at times. I still disagree with his conclusions mainly because I disagree with unstated premises, but yes, it reminded me of both a World Watch essay concept and a SotG concept -- the freedom to not be a member of a religion being a core concept to its being a religion.
Of course the idea creates the possibility of a continuum of hypocrisy that is directly related to to the rewards for hypocrisy in a micro system. For instance (I have never lived there so this is hypothetical) if a community was entirely Mormon in Utah, there would exist social and probable economic incentives to convert. This offers a simple relationship between available incentives and expected numbers of hypocrites.
However, there are certainly different flavors of power that attract various types of hypocrites from 'get more customers' all the way to 'force my brother to let me sleep with his underage daughters' or worse. Only when a religion seizes absolute political control would the relationship indicate that true faith must vanish. (a fraction of infinity being infinite type thing)
Still it is good to have a general rule of thumb to estimate the piety of a congregation.
Oh, and do not think I am picking on the Mormons, I know that the LDS church demands so much of its members in terms of time and energy that if anything there is a negative incentive to membership that acts as a barrier to entry that acts as a filter against the impious.
posted
I think sometimes people get in the habit of diagreeing with BC solely because he's BC and he's made a lot of Hatrackers mad or said a lot of offensive things in the past.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like genetics being the mechanism for the broader study of evolution, Faith becomes the core element of defining a Religion, so yes as OSC said, the Freedom of Religion creates the possibility of Religion, what he did not do point out is exactly how the individual loses the possibility of Faith in a Theocracy. It is the dissolution of the power of Faith that destroys the Religion and turns it into a mere political block.
posted
The problem with this philosophical view is that it's absolutely murdering semantics in the process of trying to establish itself. It turns commonly accepted notions of faith completely around; you end up re-defining it for us and making it into something which, for the rest of the world, it does not actually mean.
To wit: according to your principle, the Islamic faith, despite being a faith (with holy books and prophets and all that jazz) is not actually a faith because a faith is only a faith in certain circumstances involving a specific categorization of contemporary, Western-themed sociopolitical liberties in regards to religion. Faith is only faith there. Even the faithful are not actually possessed of a faith, no matter how much faith they have in their religion, unless they are in a modern democracy with freedom of religion.
See? Murdering semantics. With a rusty spoon. Especially given that in the religious context, the world tends to define a faith as 'the body of dogma of a religion.'
The position won't fly unless it works around this salient point. "Faith != faith" is an insurmountable hurdle. It doesn't work. In its present state, it's (ironically) dogmatic philosophical noodling.
/ edit
I'm going to add this before I go.
This is candid and serious. I'm not saying that the point that you are broaching upon has no merit. It's just that it's not widely saleable in its present transmission.
posted
Faith is emphasized as the central issue but it is not redefined, it remains sincere belief in the unknowable for the sake of the intangible.
Clearly tangible rewards and subjugation to the knowable do not qualify. The real problem here is that you see the inevitable conclusion and must find some way to not go there.
I will spell it out. Islam as it stands in the Middle East is not entitled to be treated as a religion, only as a political party. It is analogous to that whore house in Nevada that operated as a Church to gain tax free status. (calling sex a sacrament and payment in donations)
posted
I will spell it out. Your understanding of Islam in general and Islam in the Middle East in particular is so lacking and mired and ignorance and bigotry, you have no credibility whatsoever to state what it should and should not be treated like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The real problem here is that you see the inevitable conclusion and must find some way to not go there.
In actuality, this has nothing to do with my concerns whatsoever. I'm actually talking about "semantics" and the trouble that your loose positional mantras are going to get you in.
Namely, you're essentially saying that Islam is not a faith and that it's impossible for it to be a faith!
The expected and perhaps deserved response: "Oh, Bean Counter!"
quote:It is analogous to that whore house in Nevada that operated as a Church to gain tax free status. (calling sex a sacrament and payment in donations)
In actuality, it's not analogous at all! Islam does not pretend to be a faith to get tax-free status; that's Scientology.
Also, Rakeesh is broaching on a wider concern involving your position: your credibility involving perspectives on Islam and middle eastern cultures has indeed become greatly viewed as being ignorant and bigoted.
Tbh, when put in context with everything you've previously had to say about Islam and Middle Easterners on this forum, then yes -- dark undertones surface in analysis.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to make sure this conversation remains grounded in terms as vivid as Bean Counter has used before...
When you call Arabs smelly, lying, cowardly, evil scumbags as a race-repeatedly-well, well-meaning intelligent people just aren't going to give the vitriol you spew the time of day, Bean Counter.
You're not a very skillful demagogue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Namely, you're essentially saying that Islam is not a faith and that it's impossible for it to be a faith
Wow, maybe I should post simpler ideas so that the core of them cannot be so distorted.
I am not essentially saying anything, I am exactly saying that until/unless/except where Islam exists in a State with Freedom of Religion it cannot be a Religion of Faith.
It is short sighted of anybody to believe that only Arabs are under the heal of this political machine masquerading as Religion, there are many people threatened by it who are at risk of losing the opportunity to believe in the unknowable instead of the inexorable.
posted
Where the goal of the community is not domination and eradication of other religions, absolutely, then the people have a chance at making a real Religion.
If the people are not integrated into the doctrine of religious freedom, then they are still tied to the body of a political machine, though more loosely held and liable to fall away. They might even retool their Religion into a personal Faith without leaving the congregation once they realize that they can do so freely and without consequence.
This may indeed account for many Westerner's experience with Muslims who impress them as Faithful. They have acquired the freedom to be so by becoming Western.
It also makes a good point for why so few ex-patriots of the Middle East are willing to flock home to be under Theocratic influence again. They do not want to have their Faith taken from them, having discovered it at last.
quote:Where the goal of the community is not domination and eradication of other religions, absolutely, then the people have a chance at making a real Religion.
The thing is, I agree with you. But I think you're using the word "real" when what you really mean is "good."
Lots of religions exist and have existed in areas that have as a goal the domination and eradication of other religions. They were just bad religions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The qualifying power within our definition of Religion is Faith. It is the absence of Faith that changes the nature of the organization, coercion, seduction, influence, and subjugation from above renders Faith nonexistent.
I do not mean good, in fact a person could theoretically believe in an evil god without any expectation or evidence and still be acting on Faith. It is hard to imagine an organization dedicated to an evil archetype offering free choice to the congregation though.
quote: Lots of religions exist and have existed in areas that have as a goal the domination and eradication of other religions. They were just bad religions.
They where not 'Faith Based' religions, they offered nothing but political organization to their followers, and like Islam fail in the test for presence of Faith.
quote:It is short sighted of anybody to believe that only Arabs are under the heal of this political machine masquerading as Religion,
In case it needs to be said again, we're murdering semantics again. This time with a candlestick in the dining room.
Point in case: Islam is a religion. Period. End of story. In order to say that it is only a political machine masquerading as a religion, you are claiming that
Islam is not a religion.
Feel free to continue working openly with that kind of a point. Whether or not your idea applies to the whole of Islam, or just Islam in Islamic nations, people will simply conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If X then Y, attack the argument at any point along the way, but disagreeing with the conclusion going in is no excuse to disagree at the end. It merely shows that you cannot refute the argument or follow it, one or both.
My concern is not that others think well of me, but to establish my position.
Indeed Islam is a Religion, as much as Scientology is. It is not a religion that can draw any strength from or lay any claim to Faith. That is my position. It is worship of and lust for the world, and fear of earthly punishment.
quote: They have acquired the freedom to be so by becoming Western.
This, the whorehouse in Nevada's analogy and such, discredited (for me, of course) any valid points this thread could have.
BC, you fail to notice (or choose to) that religion is tied to the cultural roots of its people. Muslims who live in western countries seem more acceptable to you (in their religious views) because...yes...they had to adapt to a new societal paradigm that is the same you live in. So, they're not so alien to you anymore. I'm sure many muslims could make a case that Christianism is not a true religion either.
You are judging people who don't live by your standards as if your own values were the only ones that mattered. Many people do that. OSC does it a lot too, IMHO.
But I still think he's nicer about it Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all, my reasons for judging them so are laid out in this post. They are not at all personal, by your false assumption I should be even more offended by the alieness of the Hindu pantheon, yet I can call them Religions of Faith because they are freely chosen.
You are simply unable to divorce your false assumptions about me from the words you read, or less charitably you are unable to read.
However, I do not believe that values are a thing that one can allow to drift about because they vary from place to place. It is not OK to sit down to a supper of human flesh just because you are in New Guinea.
Unlike OSC I do not have to live by my popularity and palatability.
I'd probably "sound" smarter in portuguese, but see...I guess YOU can't understand it (I think), can you? So that leave us the only language we have in common (I guess).
(KoM words are wise)
Now seriously. I assure you I understand every word you write. You think the meaning of "freedom" is one and the same wherever you go, no matter when and who you ask. Can you prove muslims can't have faith in their religions if they live in a Country where it's a state-sponsored religion? Do you think they yearn for the right to choose their religion at will? "Freedom" means different thinks for different people at different times.
quote: It is not OK to sit down to a supper of human flesh just because you are in New Guinea.
I assure that you'd have no such revulsion if you were born and raised in a society where human flesh is considered a tasty delicacy. Of course, being foreign to such a society, you find this perfectly edible food horrible and gross, because of societal norms ingrained in you since your childhood.
quote: by your false assumption I should be even more offended by the alieness of the Hindu pantheon, yet I can call them Religions of Faith because they are freely chosen
People's prejudices against other cultures may surface in different ways. For you, a "State-sponsored religion" is more alien than the Hindu pantheon, because it's "freely chosen". That probably arises from the fact that you seem to be a commited member of a religion who was once persecuted by the "State-sponsored religion" of the time (the Catholic Church persecuted Protestants for quite a while). Having different views about things is ok. No problem. We all have hidden or open prejudices about many things. I just think that you could benefit from refraining from judging societal practices as "right" or "wrong" and trying to view them as merely "different". Not that you should embrace them. Again, people on the "other side" can and do think about western social practices as decadent and morally disgusting. Are they "wrong"? Why?
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freedom has an absolute meaning... I could not read Portuguese but French, or Spanish are fine and my wife could translate Russian, Lithuanian or Polish for me... and I am Catholic.
I think you need to assume less about me and look at the ideas as the pure white light of reason they represent.
posted
I'll try again, BC...it's not a contest to see who can speak the greatest number of languages. We could try Spanish...but why debate in a language that's neither mine nor your first one? I also just meant something simple: Please, don't assume I can't understand your words. I can.
The Catholic church was also persecuted in it's inception, for quite a while, before it turned into a State-sponsored religion, so...moot point.
See...IMHO the problem is... there isn't such thing as "the pure white light of reason" when it comes to human societal behavior. Think of it as a caleidoscope. Might help.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: First things first. Will you admit that in a theocracy, at least SOME people can have genuine faith?
Not at all, anybody in a Theocracy has their potential for Faith tainted by the social sticks and carrots. In the absence of freedom of choice there is no real Faith in the unknowable, their is an imperative to believe that cannot help taint any belief.
BC
Hyperbole is not your friend...
I agree with the basic premise that in the form of a theocracy a religion greatly loses theological ground as has historically been true (as you correctly point out) and is largly true of Islam today.
The fact that you claim that no one practicing the religion in these circumstances can be legitimately practicing a faithful religion is both laughable and offensive to me at the same time (an odd combination I admit).
Do I think it would have been at least somewhat difficult to be a true believer during the middle ages or even now in say Iran? Yes.
Do I think it's impossible to be a true believer in those circumstances? No, and I think it's silly to say otherwise...
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
