Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 2638 Images: 5 Location: Round Hill, VA
Thanks: 270 Thanked: 215 times in 172 posts
Gender: Country:
DWill wrote:
Saffron wrote:
. I'm pretty sure there is a name for that practice.
Were you thinking of "stereoytping"?
Yes, and words like prejudice, bigotry and maybe chauvinism.
Quote:
I tried to say a similar thing, I think, when I claimed that many people go too far in objectifying religion, making it a single entity, one that is somehow pictured as an outside force (or germ/virus) and not something issuing, voluntarily in most cases, from peoples' minds, a creation.
...and I like your use of the word bogeyman in that post.
_________________ " How we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used." - Wendell Berry, What Are People For?
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don’t even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child — our own two eyes. All is a miracle.” -Thich Nhat Hahn
It's an interesting article that looks at why people who identify as religious are happier than those who identify themselves as secular. You've got to get through the second page (it's only two pages) to get the full brunt of the article; it builds up on the first page, and then the denouement is on the second.
I think this exemplifies why we need a positive term to collectively refer to ourselves.
_________________ The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. -- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot
Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 2638 Images: 5 Location: Round Hill, VA
Thanks: 270 Thanked: 215 times in 172 posts
Gender: Country:
ZachSylvanus wrote:
It's an interesting article that looks at why people who identify as religious are happier than those who identify themselves as secular. You've got to get through the second page (it's only two pages) to get the full brunt of the article; it builds up on the first page, and then the denouement is on the second.
Great article! Thank you for posting it.
Buddhist can be added to the list of groups who do not believe in a god or God and have a practice that is generally considered religious.
_________________ " How we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used." - Wendell Berry, What Are People For?
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don’t even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child — our own two eyes. All is a miracle.” -Thich Nhat Hahn
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
Myself: Another element completely missing from this kind of broad-brush hyper-critique is the role of religion in the lives of countless everyday people who do their jobs, perform public service, assist their communities, and do their part as citizens and members of the human race to make the world a better place: police officers, doctors, nurses, emt drivers, firemen, business people, teachers, etc....many of which see their worklife and vocation in direct relation to their faith and religious practice."
Interbane: I think you would find this even harder to support than to show the historical negatives of religion. What do you assume people would do without religion? Turn into emotionless, hateful zombies? Do you think no charities would spring up in place of religious charities?
I am not trying to dispute the negative impact of various religious beliefs and practices: they have and do exist and have helped to create terrible harm: in tandem with various other components of human culture, kinship and technologies. So, my point is not to argue away the negative. Considering the number of Americans who attend Church, believe in God, participate in religious traditions and customs (a very large percentage): it is reasonable to say that many of them are firemen, doctors, nurses, emt drivers, teachers, scientists, businessmen who are helping to make the world a better place. It is also reasonable to say they do this kind of work as an expression of their faith: a kind of calling or vocation that suits their religious expectations for mature, moral and just living.
It is a red herring to argue that "they could still be as moral and just without religion". They could be a lot of things if they werent who they were: but they are who they are...not what you would like them to be.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
DH I agree. It is tantamount to seeking a single answer to the degree of threat posed by technology, or economics, or agriculture, or media, or any other human product:
What you describe above are tools used by people, these tools have little to no power to motivate. Interbane's example of the gun still applies. These tools do allow for some level of abuse but they are neutral in and of themselves.
Religion however can alter a person's mindset and provide motivation. That motivation and mindset helps determine how the above tools are used.
Interbane's example of Bin Laden is a good one, his religious belief motivated him to plan and utilize technology to kill thousands and the belief in martyrdom allowed his lackeys to fly that technology (and themselves) into buildings.
Quote:
DH The argument is that the positives are miniscule in relation to the negatives: so much so, that to seriously examine the positives becomes more of a distraction, a veiled attempt to minimize the negatives...a ploy, a scheme, a trick and trap: a backdoor approach to evangelize...a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Who is making that argument?
DH, are you getting ready to beat up a straw man again?
That's too cute...
Its only when those claims come unsolicited that they become evangelistic.
I have, and continue to look seriously at the claims of religious good and they are not miniscule. What I am not convinced of is that those good deeds are restricted to the religious or motivated solely and purely by a belief in god and religion.
We have seen studies on this, and examples when looking at modern secular societies, but it nearly always comes back to the argument that religion is necessary for good behavior...
See the following examples...
Quote:
DH The role of religion in the lives of countless everyday people who do their jobs, perform public service, assist their communities, and do their part as citizens and members of the human race to make the world a better place:
DH it is reasonable to say that many of them are firemen, doctors, nurses, emt drivers, teachers, scientists, businessmen who are helping to make the world a better place. It is also reasonable to say they do this kind of work as an expression of their faith:
I have not as of yet seen any examples or evidence that shows that religion (specifically western religions) are needed to create the goodwill attributed to them.
Quote:
DH It is a red herring to argue that "they could still be as moral and just without religion". They could be a lot of things if they weren't who they were: but they are who they are...not what you would like them to be.
Actually it is not a red herring at all... there is clear evidence (some of it posted above) that this behavior is alive and well in mostly secular societies... So while it may be true that some of the above people define their role as helpers through their religious belief... it is also true that religious belief is not necessary for that behavior.
Quote:
Saffron I'm pretty sure there is a name for that practice.
Quote:
DWill Were you thinking of "stereotyping"?
Quote:
Saffron Yes, and words like prejudice, bigotry and maybe chauvinism.
Wow, so criticizing a belief is suddenly Stereotyping, Prejudice and chauvinistic?
Is the same true if I criticize the belief that Elvis is still alive?
Or is this a double standard reserved for religious beliefs alone?
Remember, I am talking about a belief system here and the claims and deeds made on its behalf, not individual people.
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Aug 2003 Posts: 1796
Thanks: 0 Thanked: 14 times in 12 posts
Gender: Country:
Frank: What you describe above are tools used by people, these tools have little to no power to motivate. Interbane's example of the gun still applies. These tools do allow for some level of abuse but they are neutral in and of themselves. Religion however can alter a person's mindset and provide motivation. That motivation and mindset helps determine how the above tools are used.
Tools motivate and they are not neutral. Religion is a tool. Like economics, a complicated and complex tool: one that is very difficult to reduce to any one component, and one that is present in many other capacties of human experience. Some use religion wisely, some maniacally: some build, some destroy. And some use it for a hammer when it should be used as a brush.
Frank: DH, are you getting ready to beat up a straw man again?
Actually, the straw man is your straw man accusation.
Frank: What I am not convinced of is that those good deeds are restricted to the religious or motivated solely and purely by a belief in god and religion. We have seen studies on this, and examples when looking at modern secular societies, but it nearly always comes back to the argument that religion is necessary for good behavior...
Which is okay, but it is nothing I have argued or try to make the case for...which is, well, as you would say: beating a straw man.
Frank: I have not as of yet seen any examples or evidence that shows that religion (specifically western religions) are needed to create the goodwill attributed to them.
Which is not my point. I am not arguing that one must be a Christian (or Jew, or belong to a major or minor religion) to express good will. I am arguing that for many who do show good will, their religion is a primary factor in that behavior.
Frank: So while it may be true that some of the above people define their role as helpers through their religious belief... it is also true that religious belief is not necessary for that behavior.
I don't deny the latter point, and see no reason why it must somehow negate the former.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
DH Tools motivate and they are not neutral.
So in your opinion owning a hammer motivates you to hammer?
Quote:
DH Religion is a tool. Like economics, a complicated and complex tool: one that is very difficult to reduce to any one component and one that is present in many other capacities of human experience. Some use religion wisely, some maniacally: some build, some destroy. And some use it for a hammer when it should be used as a brush.
Religion is a belief ... a way of life... which (by your own admission) spreads a faith that motivates behavior.
Economics is a financial system which is directed and used or misused by pre-established morality; it does not spread a specific belief or create faith in the unknowable.
Quote:
DH Actually, the straw man is your straw man accusation.
What accusation would that be?
Quote:
DH I am not arguing that one must be a Christian (or Jew, or belong to a major or minor religion) to express good will. I am arguing that for many who do show good will, their religion is a primary factor in that behavior.
So what would these people be without their religion?
Quote:
DH I don't deny the latter point, and see no reason why it must somehow negate the former.
It does not negate the former but it is superior to it, because the former comes with all kinds of baggage, which is frankly unnecessary at this point in our culture.
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Oct 2004 Posts: 3724 Images: 3 Location: California Highscores:1 Thanks: 349 Thanked: 749 times in 564 posts
Gender: Country:
Frank: I have not as of yet seen any examples or evidence that shows that religion (specifically western religions) are needed to create the goodwill attributed to them.
DH: "Which is not my point. I am not arguing that one must be a Christian (or Jew, or belong to a major or minor religion) to express good will. I am arguing that for many who do show good will, their religion is a primary factor in that behavior."
I agree with your point DH. As a point, I don't see if it could be shown as a positive influence of religion though. It is sufficient as a motivating factor, but not necessary. A religiously motivated fireman most definitely has an atheist parallel in a nonreligious country. I don't see this as a negative point either, merely neutral on the spectrum.
DH: "Religion is a tool. Like economics, a complicated and complex tool: one that is very difficult to reduce to any one component and one that is present in many other capacities of human experience. Some use religion wisely, some maniacally: some build, some destroy. And some use it for a hammer when it should be used as a brush."
Hrmm, as Frank said, can a hammer motivate you to hammer? I see it as (motivation->person->tool->deed), or (religion->Osama->airplane->destruction). Religion can be used as a tool as well, but that's specific to a case. Greed to motivate someone to use religion to make money. Or religion to motivate someone to use religion to convince others to give to a charitable cause.
It's not a simple thing to analyze at all, too many variables, too much complexity. Yet I think there's still overwhelming evidence to show that religion is most often a motivating factor rather than a tool. As a motivating factor that manifests in good, I think it's sufficient, but not necessary. Countries like Sweden with a high percentage of atheists have alternate motivating factors to do good.
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 3893 Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 689 Thanked: 562 times in 454 posts
Gender: Country:
Frank,
I hope the burden of having to make all these rebuttals doesn't begin to tire you. You seem actually very able to defend yourself, so I won't worry about it. I'm not going to do a full counterpoint to your last post. It would get too long, and no one else would want to read it. I just have a couple of things.
Frank wrote:
You are free to think this, but I think you fail to see the depths of the problems caused by religious belief... You are immersed in that culture and I think your view is biased. (even if you cannot see that yourself)
Quite possibly I am biased--no, wait, I'm SURE you are right. Just about the only statement I will dismiss out of hand is that, especially with regard to a topic like this one, bias can be eliminated from our views. It is impossible to have a rationally detached view of the subject, although this is what we should try to do. We should have these conversations as a way of learning more about what our biases might be. Unfortunately, this happens pretty infrequently. You yourself have characterized what you do as fighting. However, I would liken your stance to that of a spokesman for a political party. You have an impressive supply of information at the ready, and an excellent command of the talking points. Understandably, you use the facts selectively to bolster the positions of your party. My objection to your approach, as you already know, is that it relies on generalization and simplification of more complex realities.
This oversimplification is most evident when it comes to history. I don't doubt your knowledge of certain eras of history. It's just that I don't think you take into account that history is not static, it cannot be reduced to a simple result, there are always multiple causes, and we cannot project the present onto it. We can briefly look at one example, the attitude of religion toward science. We should never talk so generally in the first place, so let's avoid that mistake and specify the Roman Catholic church's
position on science. What does the historical record show us about this? Early on, in Gallileo's time, there is persecution and suppression. No, this wasn't right. But did the church maintain this stance throughout and up to the present? No, it changed, and the fact that it still may object to some applications of science does not make it anti-science. The case has been made that the church, and Christianity in general, actually provided a climate conducive to science when it was in its gestation period. I can't prove this is true, not having enough background, but it is at least plausible, thinking of Gregor Mendel and even the young Charles Darwin cutting his teeth as a scientist while still under the sway of the biblical account of creation. At any rate, if the church tried so hard to defeat science, it did a miserably poor job and couldn't on such a basis be viewed as a threat.
Let me know if there is anything from your last post you'd still like me to specifically address.
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 3893 Location: Berryville, Virginia
Thanks: 689 Thanked: 562 times in 454 posts
Gender: Country:
Frank 013 wrote:
Economics is a financial system which is directed and used or misused by pre-established morality; it does not spread a specific belief or create faith in the unknowable.
Frank, I just had to comment on this one piece. Do you really believe that our capitalistic free market system "does not spread a specific belief or create faith in the unknowable"? The market is god for many (although maybe that god has fallen since the financial meltdown). Economics seems to me anything but neutral. It is not a stretch to put it into a category which includes religion.
Joined: Apr 2008 Posts: 2638 Images: 5 Location: Round Hill, VA
Thanks: 270 Thanked: 215 times in 172 posts
Gender: Country:
DWill,
Thank your for the last two posts on this thread -- eloquent!
_________________ " How we eat determines, to a considerable extent, how the world is used." - Wendell Berry, What Are People For?
“People usually consider walking on water or in thin air a miracle. But I think the real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth. Every day we are engaged in a miracle which we don’t even recognize: a blue sky, white clouds, green leaves, the black, curious eyes of a child — our own two eyes. All is a miracle.” -Thich Nhat Hahn
Joined: May 2002 Posts: 12136 Images: 0 Location: Florida Highscores:145 Thanks: 861 Thanked: 378 times in 300 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
So in your opinion owning a hammer motivates you to hammer?
Your point was well made, Frank.
DWill said:
Quote:
The market is god for many (although maybe that god has fallen since the financial meltdown). Economics seems to me anything but neutral. It is not a stretch to put it into a category which includes religion.
I think referring to the market as a "God" is something only a theist would do, but feel free to explain yourself further. Nobody considers the market an actual entity. Nobody prays to the market and considers the market to have an existence independent of humanity. If humanity goes extinct so does the market.
To me this sort of statement is completely illogical and meaningless and used to obfuscate the whole God concept to the point where nobody knows what the other person is talking about. If we can label the market as God or science as God then we can therefore start to attack just about everyone for having faith and being some sort of religious believer.
The market is a concept used to explain complex interactions between both willing and unwilling participants in the exchange of goods and services. If those participants go away so does the market. Does God vanish the moment believers stop believing? It certainly does. Therefore, God is merely a concept....and a rather primitive and evil one at that.
Joined: Nov 2005 Posts: 2025 Location: NY Highscores:59 Thanks: 560 Thanked: 169 times in 116 posts
Gender: Country:
Quote:
DWill Just about the only statement I will dismiss out of hand is that, especially with regard to a topic like this one, bias can be eliminated from our views.
And that is a statement that I would never make, but we should try to be unbiased as you say.
Quote:
DWill Unfortunately, this happens pretty infrequently. You yourself have characterized what you do as fighting.
If you had been sparing with DH on subjects like these for the last several years I think you might start to equate these debates with battle yourself, of course as a military person I equate most things with battle.
Quote:
DWill Understandably, you use the facts selectively to bolster the positions of your party. My objection to your approach, as you already know, is that it relies on generalization and simplification of more complex realities.
There are much more personalized records that speak to what I am saying, my position is not nearly as selective as you seem to think, a short look into the historical records of say the witch hunts of the 15th century will show many examples of religious inspired death that just do not make any sense unless a belief in witches is present, but to list these personalized accounts as single events is really no help unless I was willing to write about thousands of these events to show that they are not isolated instances.
And I am not that willing.
Quote:
DWill This oversimplification is most evident when it comes to history. I don't doubt your knowledge of certain eras of history. It's just that I don't think you take into account that history is not static, it cannot be reduced to a simple result, there are always multiple causes, and we cannot project the present onto it.
And I think that the above statement is overcomplicated... there are not ALWAYS multiple causes. Sometimes it is a simple adherence to dogma that causes problems.
Gays being denied marriage rights is a simple case in point.
But I do agree that in the vast majority of cases there are multiple factors... but as I see it in many of these cases the underlying motive is often at least partly religious in nature, or the blatant abuse of religion.
That does not clear religion however because it will always be used so and I think it is relatively clear at this point that we as a species can get along without it.
Quote:
DWill The case has been made that the church and Christianity in general, actually provided a climate conducive to science when it was in its gestation period. I can't prove this is true, not having enough background, but it is at least plausible, thinking of Gregor Mendel and even the young Charles Darwin cutting his teeth as a scientist while still under the sway of the biblical account of creation.
What I see here is a church that was rapidly loosing power to secular organizations and ideas, it was incapable of the type of suppression it once had used so freely... and I might add that Darwin and his theory were very badly demonized by the church and I believe (I'll have to check) that his book and others like it were put on the church's "do not read" list as heretical.
So no, I would not say that the church in that time provided a conducive climate to science... at least not all science, it did appear to be ok with the sciences that did not contradict the church's models of the workings of the world.
Quote:
DWill At any rate, if the church tried so hard to defeat science, it did a miserably poor job and couldn't on such a basis be viewed as a threat.
You know... your right... 300 years of supression is not so much...
Let me ask you this...
Is creationism in the class room not a problem to you?
How about the suppression of stem cell research, is this not a religiously backed attempt to block a scientific study?
Are these not examples of religious people forcing their will on the general populace weather we believe what they do or not?
Is it reasonable to say that they feel some sense of authority in matters such as these?
If not why do they feel that they have the right to force their rules on everyone?
Later
_________________ That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Joined: Aug 2008 Posts: 1872 Images: 1 Location: NC
Thanks: 410 Thanked: 468 times in 349 posts
Gender: Country:
DWill wrote:
We can briefly look at one example, the attitude of religion toward science. We should never talk so generally in the first place, so let's avoid that mistake and specify the Roman Catholic church's position on science. What does the historical record show us about this? Early on, in Gallileo's time, there is persecution and suppression. No, this wasn't right. But did the church maintain this stance throughout and up to the present? No, it changed, and the fact that it still may object to some applications of science does not make it anti-science. The case has been made that the church, and Christianity in general, actually provided a climate conducive to science when it was in its gestation period. I can't prove this is true, not having enough background, but it is at least plausible, thinking of Gregor Mendel and even the young Charles Darwin cutting his teeth as a scientist while still under the sway of the biblical account of creation. At any rate, if the church tried so hard to defeat science, it did a miserably poor job and couldn't on such a basis be viewed as a threat.
Frank 013 wrote:
What I see here is a church that was rapidly loosing power to secular organizations and ideas, it was incapable of the type of suppression it once had used so freely... and I might add that Darwin and his theory were very badly demonized by the church and I believe (I'll have to check) that his book and others like it were put on the church's "do not read" list as heretical.
So no, I would not say that the church in that time provided a conducive climate to science... at least not all science, it did appear to be ok with the sciences that did not contradict the church's models of the workings of the world.
Agreeing with Frank here. Though resistance to science fluctuates over time, to say that Christianity was actually conducive to science seems pretty farfetched. If anything, religious dogma puts barriers in front of new ideas. There is still massive resistance to evolution, though there is as much evidence to support it as for the existence of atoms. Religious dogma gives in to scientific progress only when it has to (i.e. when it becomes impossible to resist it any more.) The heliocentric model of the solar system, for example, was accepted only when the evidence for it was overwhelming and to deny it was no longer even plausible.
That various institutions have even tried to resist scientific truth does not speak well of religion in general.
Anyway, regardless of how good or bad religion has been to us over the centuries, I think we can all agree that a belief system based on sheer fantasy cannot ultimately be a good thing for humankind.
_________________ -Geo Who Knows Only His Own Generation Remains Always a Child Cicero, Orator 120
Last edited by geo on Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.
Support BookTalk.org
BookTalk.org is being upgraded to a totally new design. This upgrade is expensive. Any support would be VERY helpful! See who supports us.
Make a donation
PEOPLE PAYING FOR OUR UPGRADE:
• afv - $10 May
• LevV - $50 March
• Dexter - $10 March
• supernova38 - $25 March
• Oblivion - $20 March
• jheimlich - $20 February
• Robert Tulip - $50 February
• giselle - $50 January
Children here need worming
regularly, and I think I
need to buy more worming
tablets, so while my friends
sit on the beach, I have to
catch bush taxis up to the… more
The children have a long way
to walk to the nearest primary
school. At the moment they are
in temporary accommodation,
with volunteer teachers. There
is community land available,
a… more
The price of The 12th Disciple
has been updated to $3.99 for
Kindle readers. The book is
still available for free to
borrow for Amazon Prime
members. To be
competitive, and s… more
The 12th Disciple has been
reviewed by two different
people on Amazon. They
purchased the Kindle edition;
one in the US, one in the
UK. One review was
5-stars (US) and the oth… more
I'd like to say I've
been reading Harry Potter
since the day the world renown
series appeared on the
scene. Unfortunately,
the truth is I began reading
Harry Potter… more
Easter teaches many of us the
importance of redemption and
resurrection. Regardless of
what faith people follow, the
story of Jesus Christ has been
told in many languages in many
c… more
Our Book Talk will begin on
Wednesday, May 2nd. I look
forward to hearing about your
learning and classroom
experiences with Number Talks
as it all unfolds...
NONOPPOSITIONAL NONVIOLENCE
The minute you conquer the
fear of death, at that moment
you are free. I submit to you
that if a man hasnt
discovered something that he
will die f… more
Yesterday, when I went to feed
Jeni the donkey, I noticed
swarms of bees entering
Ebrimas house through the
cracks in the door. We both
had a look, but he didnt
open his door… more
Whether you want to implement
number talks but are unsure of
how to begin or have
experience but want more
guidance in crafting
purposeful problems, this
dynamic multimedia resourc… more
Do you feel entitled? For
years I have listened to and,
in some instances, complained
that some people in America
feel entitled. For years I
have watched as these people
are portra… more
On Fat Tuesday and Ash
Wednesday of 2012, The 12th
Disciple was free to Kindle
users on both days. In all,
about 550 worldwide Kindle
users downloaded a copy of the
book.
Sacred Are the Brave a
collection of short stories
about the nonviolent
revolutions 1986-1989 is now
available in Kindle. Each of
the nine stories has
characters who are just
… more
The Weekend Trippers is the
true story of Rfn Ted Taylor
and his part in the heroic
last stand in Calais May 1940.
The Weekend Trippers is based
on Teds diaries written at
the… more
Tell your friends when to meet you in the BookTalk.org Chat Room.
If you enjoy business bestsellers and would like to expand your business knowledge check out the quality book summaries offered by the world's leading book summary company.
BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.
Tweet This Topic
