Some Churches Are Still Packing in Crowds
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
>Some megachurches have opted out of in-person services and turned to live streaming entirely.
Correction: Just about every church that I've heard about has gone online. Certainly possible that less-affected states are a week or two behind the curve, but most understand the weight of this and are acting accordingly.
Gatherings of more than 10 people are banned right now, and I don't think there are any churches interested in flouting the local government.
Plenty of people want to go even if it's not safe for them, and others don't want to go but want to respect their leaders. I've found that each time we made a decision to tighten up in-person meetings, it brought way more relief than anger.
It was difficult for most churches figuring out the technical difficulties at first, but things have been smooth the past two weeks.
Also, if anyone has ever been interested in checking out a church, this is probably the best time to do it - you can do it from the comfort of your pajamas, and tons of churches have virtual services. Happy to share a few well-known churches/pastors if anyone is interested.
However, these types of articles are often used to cast aspersions on all Christians. That was essential the point of the parent comment. Why single out megachurches? You could find plenty of similar examples in the business, social and government realm of large groups continuing to meet.
Though going to church might be the worst of all options since church goers tend to skew more to the older side of the population.
Actually, probably not, which is why "megachurches" is an important qualifier here. From my observations, megachurches tend heavily to be independent and evangelical, and tend to have much younger members. They also tend to have a lot of (Christian) rock music as part of the services. The old people don't join those churches; those people are still in the mainline Protestant churches they've been going to for many decades, which have traditional service, and don't preach to you that God loves rich people more.
The media's dislike for anything Christian makes this a two quadrant story.. possible three if the mega churches are in a red state.
Wait, what?
Why not? From my observations, megachurches tend to be very different from many other Christian churches, including in theology. Christians aren't all the same, but there are some definite things that many, if not most, megachurches have in common, that they don't share with other denominations. (Starting with "denominations", in fact: megachurches usually don't belong to one.)
Spend a few minutes at http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/database.html, see which one deserves the use of the word "some". Why couldn't the author determine which was more representative and thus accurately portray what most churches are doing? If I'm right and most churches have closed, wouldn't it be more persuasive to read an article that says "everyone who believes what you do is doing this, you should too"?
I agree, it would have been good to do a proper study, but surely you agree that the fact that these three are open is newsworthy, no? It's not science, it's journalism.
Did you similarly complain about the rigor of all the articles last weekend written about people being irresponsibly crowded in parks and on beaches?
The first 15 unique churches on this list that had active links are all meeting online. But the first 15 coin flips could be heads, I suppose.
It's newsworthy, but I'd much rather it be reported in a responsible way.
However if the two "sides" are unequal, it gives the illusion of evenness when there is no actual equivalence.
You don't see this misrepresentation when it leaves an impression of an even split between churches that follow public health standards and those that don't. You do see this misrepresentation when it leaves the impression that there is a scientific debate about global warming. But the problem is the same in both cases - the format itself leads to systemic misrepresentations of the world.
With an opening line of, "Most churches have responded to COVID-19 with measures like live streaming their services. But a few holdouts disregard the dangers..."
This makes it clear that we are now talking about how the crazies view the world. Which slants everything else that people will respond to.
It transforms "those crazy Christians" into "the crazies among the Christians". Which draws a more accurate picture of most Christians.
To be fair though, and getting to the point I was teasing: it's very odd to find us having this argument about "implications" about groups in media coverage in defense a a community that is itself rife with equivalently unrepresentative coverage of immigrants, progressives, feminists, etc... All of these groups are constantly made to answer for the crimes of their most extreme members in the right wing press. It just seems a little... off that all of a sudden HN seems to care so much about this kind of journalistic integrity.
My opinions are reasonably consistent. However if you try to draw a consistent picture out of a mix of what I say and what others say, you will fail horribly. Sure, I'm happy to point you to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE or https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato... to give other viewpoints on how laying everything out as a debate between two sides poisons our society. But I wouldn't expect most of HN to be on board with the strength of my views.
I also don't agree with your characterization of the "HN community". This site usually doesn't report on the coverage of the right wing press. When it does, most commentators seem to lean towards the outlook described in https://www.wired.com/story/political-education-silicon-vall.... Admittedly with outspoken exceptions.
As for me personally, I am a libertarian atheist whose explicit goal is to be right..eventually. In that end I care deeply that my impressions reflect reality, particularly for people that I disagree with. I am painfully aware that natural cognitive biases will lead it to be comfortable for me to accept an echo chamber. I care about the misrepresentation not because I respect Christianity - I don't - but because I care that my thinking correctly represents Christians.
When Christians kill other people or themselves, they go to hell (if you take their believes at face value). They should be THANKFUL to the people who are "attacking" them so they don't kill other people, kill themselves, then go to hell.
It's good that some states are actually effectively stopping such gatherings but this serious problem apparently remain and may appear as a flood of refugees into these states.
Note, one of the States mentioned as having large megachurch gatherings in the article is Louisiana, which was 4th in terms of numbers of deaths in the last 24 hours, not really behind the curve at all.
The article mentions churches in LA, OH, and FL, but there was one in PA that isn't even a megachurch but was big enough to get an article that was basically the same as this one on the local news site. So they're definitely out there, but I haven't seen any evidence that they're anything but exceptions.
Tony's gamble is dangerous and calculated, as is evidenced by his strategic use of busses to block media coverage. If a massive outbreak in Central occurs, his congregation will not be forgotten. People will remember Tony and his flock long after the federal governments attempts to "flatten the curve." They will remember flooded hospitals and associate any decline in regional medical care with him and his attendees. Whats worse, Tonys name will be on the lips and hearts of anyone in or around Baton Rouge who cannot get care, or who has watcehd a loved one perish to this disease.
At worst, Attendees will be shunned from employment, outed on social media, and ostracized from their community. Tonys quick attempt to turn some cash in a recession will ultimately send him out of the city on a rail as other faith based communities out him as nothing more than a huckster, not a leader. Tony might even see a few civil suits for his efforts.
Then there are the people who lose family, parents, or children. They wont think twice about torching the busses he hid behind. he'll stay in their memory long after the collection plate is passed this sunday.
To put it lightly there are McDonalds restaurants with a higher capacity than 550.
550 is “normal” in comparison.
A virus with a political inclination / motivation. That's a new one.
It's really funny how there is this natural aversion to politics within (not only) American conservatism but American society at large, as if the involvement of politics somehow diminishes the authenticity of some event instead of being the natural platform to organise collective action.
For example, I see nothing in that sentence that alludes to an aversion to politics.
They would tell you nothing about if it was indeed part of a conspiracy / biowarfare / bioterrorism / ineptitude / ecological disruption ...
There's an old saying that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. I think that applies here.
Yes, if the government--at any level--was forbidding people from meeting for religious reasons for an indefinite period simply "just because," that would be a violation of our freedoms and something to be gravely concerned about.
Restrictions on religion not based on the religious belief itself have been allowed since the founding of our republic. You can't have a religion where a "sincerely-held belief" is that one parishioner in attendance gets murdered. Or that smashing in people's front doors is a sign of holiness. Religious buildings, while exempt from property tax, must still comply with building, electrical, plumbing, and life safety codes.
In this situation, given that it is content-neutral--all gatherings of size are prohibited--and time-limited and in the furtherance of a major social interest (inhibiting the spread of a brand new virus), I think it withstands Constitutional scrutiny.
The people must simply trust that forfeiting a necessary aspect of democratic health will be correct in hindsight.
I'm not sure I fully understand the argument. Does this mean that if a church is closed for any reason dictated by the government, it is a violation of religious freedom? For example, the local government decides that the church building does not meet the local fire codes and shuts the door. Is that a violation of religious freedom? I don't mean to imply that these situations are the same but the way you worded it made me start thinking about what is and isn't a violation, or what it even means to take away religious freedom.
In your example, forbidding people to gather at a certain location does not forbid them to gather elsewhere.
In the current reality, forbidding people to gather in groups > 10 people does.
However, as GP pointed out, temporary restrictions != permanent restrictions, and I don't personally know anybody, at my church or elsewhere, who sees this as part of an effort to restrict religious liberty.
This concern was ameliorated by a) pointing out that any restrictions have been applied without any discrimination in that regard, and b) with the full assurances of the state of Pennsylvania that the work of the church is vital and should continue in this crisis, even if in-person services are not currently a part of that mix. (There was a conference call and everything!)
There's a myth circulating that the danger of the virus has been exaggerated for political purposes. I'm sure this is what he's referring to.
I doubt he would hold to that opinion if he saw it with his own eyes, so I am assuming he hasn't yet. Unfortunately for the members of his church, they are all about to see it with their own eyes because they are in New Orleans.
They probably believe this is a hoax, or God will spare people who give them money, or something.
They just don’t give a €*#+%% about those on whom they prey
Kind of like any other business that provides a service that people voluntarily purchase.
Imagine people that are so deeply convinced that the media is lying to them and this is a plot to undermine his agenda. That narrative absolutely exists and there are many out there who believe it.
I don't think any churches are intentionally risking the health of their congregation.
That's pretty intentional.
I think I get what you mean, that the decision isn't being made with the intention of risking their health. But they are risking the health of their congregations, because they think they know better.
Conservatives are just as concerned as liberals about the prospect of hundreds of thousands of people dying. The only difference is they tend to have confidence that the government will be able to handle the response effort.
In my opinion we're ramping up and course correcting very well.
This has been an unmitigated disaster thus far, especially if you compare us to South Korea.
When it’s your guy who fucked up, it’s interesting how all of a sudden it’s “this could have happened to anybody!”
HEB, a Texas-based grocer, was talking to partners, running disaster scenarios, and preparing their supply chain as far back as January[0]. A private company was a month ahead of the administration despite all of the preliminary reporting and intelligence communications around the virus. There’s absolutely no excuse for the way the government bungled this.
While Trump was calling the virus a hoax, companies were already preparing for what was to come.
0: https://www.texasmonthly.com/food/heb-prepared-coronavirus-p...
I know this is bad but I don't really see the point in pretending to take them seriously - you have to be really really intentionally ignorant at this point to ignore the continuous lies and blatant criminal activity from the Republicans while still being intelligent enough to post complete sentences on hacker news.
I don't see how I could come to any other conclusion than their supporters either being intentionally very ignorant, or just very ignorant.
The majority of my news comes from NPR (IPR locally here in Iowa). The main people that comment on their Facebook page are clearly liberal and clearly also some of the biggest idiots you've ever met.
Being in a position of leadership also doesn't automatically mean you're not a moron.
What I know is that the Republican President and also the Republican Governor of Iowa are taking this very seriously.
Also I highly recommend people actually watch the press briefings because what I've found is that any time I actually listen to what Trump says, he makes a hell of a lot more sense than whatever clip the media generally chooses to play out of context.
Informative?
"There's a theory that, in April, when it gets warm, historically, that has been able to kill the virus,"
Informative?
"when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away."
I could go on. And on, and on. But I doubt it will make any difference, whatsoever.
He spent 2 months first ignoring then lying about the situation and then spent a month giving terrible advice and lying some more.
Most recently he touted unproven treatments as triumphant cures while claiming that we would be back on track by Easter. Press coverage far from taking small things out of context has in many cases had to cover a lot of ground to cover the sheer amount of stupid falling like half checked food from the presidents mouth every time he appears in public.
Fox News just fired Trish Regan for stating that Coronavirus was “another attempt by Democrats to impeach Trump.” That statement came just a few weeks after Trump himself claimed that concern around the virus was also a liberal hoax. Days after making that statement, he said that cases would drop to zero in a few days, we’re now in the hundreds of thousands. When asked why he cut the pandemic preparedness unit at his National Security Council, he claimed he had no idea that happened, despite video surfacing that shows him talking about those cuts in 2018. Doctors in NYC are days away from having to decide who lives and dies because there won’t be enough respirators for everyone, they’ve already set up refrigerated trailers to store bodies. Testing still isn’t widely available even though we were all told it would be weeks ago.
We’re now at hundreds of thousands infected, thousands dead, and no end to this in sight, given that the president has now pushed social distancing measures to the end of April.
What gives you confidence about this situation?
Re-reading your comment, I think probably the main issue I have with it probably just comes down to us thinking of different people when we see the word "conservative".
I agree that people exist who fit exactly what you described. I just think that's a much smaller slice of the population than (I assumed) you believe.
> We’re now at hundreds of thousands infected, thousands dead, and no end to this in sight
Welcome to a pandemic. Americans today aren't used to being vulnerable. If anything, it's just a reminder of how thin the facade we project on the world actually is.
No, the problem is that America has an incompetent government. China, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have shown how to handle this thing with reasonable degrees of competence. We have not.
Plagues and diseases have been around since long before humans. Dealing with them is one of the functions of civilized society, and ours is failing, while other nations are doing far better jobs. But of course, Americans never want to look outside their borders at how other countries do things.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-re...
It's the usual word salad, but I think "Trump says coronavirus is a hoax" is a reasonable interpretation.
Notice how Trump's story changes rapidly. Early on, he was saying it was a liberal hoax or something. Now he's taking it seriously because he wants to look like a great leader in a time of crisis. The only thing he's consistent about is wanting to make himself look good. Luckily, for now, that's moved to actually doing the right things for the most part to deal with this (though it would have been a lot better if he hadn't screwed up so much earlier). True conservatives aren't like this: they are very principled, even if I don't agree with their principles at all. Somehow, they just haven't figured him out yet, or they're just using him for their own ends.
I'm involved in leadership for a church that closed in-person services two Sundays ago. We were probably one week later than most, but I can tell you that money did not enter the conversation at any point.
Because while I can ascribe a great deal of good-faith behavior to more normal churches, we know what kind of bad actors lurk in those palaces.
Nope. We're a small one. But just the fact that we're talking about megachurches already limits the scope of Christian churches in the US: five minute search session suggests that there are less than 2000 megachurches in the US and somewhere around 380000 churches overall.
(If I had more time I'd try to get you numbers, but any time I go down this rabbit hole it takes awhile to come out)
The other factor is that larger congregations means more opportunity for wider spread from a single infected individual, so again greater potential impact than the apparent count would imply.
It will take only one infected person in a church to spread it to a lot of people.
To me one of the scariest scene in the movie "Outbreak" was when the person sneezed in the theater.
Good God. The times we live in.
Like, what does this sentence even mean? He probably doesn't even know himself. The vague couplings we make between our political identity and just, random subjects, have transcended the subconscious and become an acceptable thing to just... profess. As-is.
Some people have very active imaginations, but that's just one of the things that makes life so interesting!
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I'm not quite sure which part of my comment you object to? Is what I said above false?
1) obey the rulers and authorities (insomuch as it does not cause issue with any other command) and
2) love their neighbor. E.g. by not knowingly engaging in activity which might cause someone to fall ill
3) not flaunt freedom. While we have every _right_ to meet, we are not disobeying if we do not.
I [virtually] never understand how other people use "literal"...
There is a big difference between those who wish to come but are unable vs. those who are able but do not.
So yes, we should, but we are currently _unable_.
More seriously, the article could find 3 megachurches that are still open. Pretty much all churches are shut down, except ones that are live streaming services. For something so unenforceable to be so widely adopted "Not many megachurches packing in crowds" seems like a more appropriate headline.
1100 parishioners is megachurch now? Last I heard you needed at least 2k / week to qualify [0]
https://www.brproud.com/health/coronavirus/central-church-ho...
Quote just for fun:
> Spell told BRPROUD that he believes covid-19 can be cured through “the healing hand of Jesus.” When asked what would happen should one of his parishioners test positive for the coronavirus, Spell referred to a passage from the Bible. “If that is our command, they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover.”
We had a very similar situation in Poland - our local branch of the catholic church was reluctant to enforce social distancing in their temples.
Eventually they caved, but who knows how many additional infections/deaths this will cause in the long run.
Martin Luther, 1527 after a plague wrecked his hometown of Wittenberg
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/488675-the-plague-co...
The actual letter he wrote: https://blogs.lcms.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Plague-blo...
The language of "tempting God" is weird though. I mean, I know it's a phrase used all the time, but it's still just weird because it makes me stop and say just what sort of personality does God have anyway?
Then he brought Him to Jerusalem, set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, If You are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here. For it is written:
He shall give his angels charge over you, To keep you, and, In their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.
And Jesus answered and said to him, It has been said, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.
Looks pretty clear to me.
A summary of how theologians interpret the word is found here (just did a quick Google search), and the explanation matches with what I wrote above. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs...
So I don't think the words "tempting God" mean what you think they mean (presuming you thought it used definitions #1, 2, or 3).
Looks like it might be πειράζω.
Edit: and Luther apparently used the word Versuchung, which I'm not sure how to interpret because everybody seems to translate it as temptation in the sense of seduction, even though the biblical word should be testing or proving...
It does make one think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in...
I think they should still open for people that have the virus and need prayer or counseling or to support anyone that lost their job,etc... (With distancing and other precautions). But even if you believe you can't get the virus, unbelievers are supposed to be very welcome in Churches so it is reckless to endanger them. I guarantee you most Churches that are lead by people that actually believe in their proclaimed faith agree with what I said (or they are stricter). Even Joel Osteen isn't holding in person services last I heard.
These aren't really mega churches. Based on the information provided they are not saying thousands of people are showing up. The headline is false. What it should say is three small to medium sized churches don't believe they should stop live mass.
Remember, younger people aren't as affected by this as older people. So these dumb churchgoers (who I believe tend to be younger, if these are megachurches) will be catching it, then spreading it to their older relatives, who will then be flooding the hospitals.
https://truthbook.com/stories/funny-god/the-drowning-man
The congregation may say "God will protect us". And he did, by having Donald Trump and everybody in power telling them not to congregate.
We still take natural precautions, such as maintaining social distancing, as we believe that it is not ours to tempt God. As it says in the Bible story, Satan tempted the Lord to throw himself off of a building because scripture said the angels would catch him. Christ responded that it was also written in scripture that you should not tempt God. This week, to take natural precautions without denying the sacredness of the Mass, we actually filled the parking lot and celebrated Holy Mass with everyone watching from their vehicles. This way, viewers could participate in the Latin Mass with minimal risk of exposure.
We obviously do not enjoy this method of worship. But, when it comes to ensuring the safety of the people while still trying to give honor and sacrifice, it's a compromise that's better than nothing.
It's kind of like Lord of The Rings, a little bit. Frodo was called to do everything possible until the very end of the journey, whereupon Eru Illuvitar, the creator of Middle-Earth, intervened to cause Gollum to slip at the last moment. God expects us to give our all, and intervenes only when we've done everything we could have done. This is to allow those who fought against evil to attain glory, and those who fought for evil to attain humiliation.
Which is more humiliating for evil? Being instantly defeated by an omnipresent, all-powerful God, or having been resisted and fought against by comparatively weak human beings who gave their all in resistance?
Furthermore, the Holy Mass is the most powerful prayer that can be offered to God. We have celibate priests who chose to volunteer their lives and give up the goods of marriage just for the ability to say this prayer. We certainly do not abandon this prayer when we need it most.
The universe is clearly deterministic. Our brains just do an astonishingly good job of making us think we’re the authors of our own decisions; were it not for that powerful illusion we’d immediately recognise free will as the absurdity which it is.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s...
For example, "Only when we humbly acknowledge that "we do not know how to pray as we ought," are we ready to receive freely the gift of prayer." What does that mean? It seems to be saying that prayer is communion with God, but also that "Prayer is the raising of one's mind and heart to God or the requesting of good things from God."
So is prayer a request of God or not?
Prayer is the button that you push. It might have no effect, and whether it does or not might be preordained, but you still have to push it to find out.
Who will be listening around for these stories? What will we be doing?
Who will be around listening to these stories once the universe cools?
What glory is there in the concern for glory, and moreover, the humiliation of evil people? Isn't there a smell to having a taste for the humiliation of evil?
For what it’s worth, there is not one atheistic worldview; the lack of belief in a god is not an ideology. It is nonsensical just like asking about the shared worldview of everyone who lacks belief in leprechauns or Zeus.
I thank you for your comment, that you seem to be sincere in expressing your beliefs. I cannot help but express my absolute astonishment that this level of "proving your love by risking your life" exists in educated society.
I also have never heard of Church described in terms of "honor and sacrifice" in a positive manner. I have never known that church was seen as so mandatory by a Christian faith that you should risk your life to go, excepting human oppression.
And, to be honest, most of us will give our lives for _something_ even if it isn't God. Whether it be pleasure, success, money, drugs, we all chose something to give our lives for.
That's not the whole set of choices. There is also the 'painful defeat by a small virus for which there is at present no cure' and 'spreading that virus around to others who do not share your particular beliefs'.
God - assuming one exists - isn't moving that virus around, but you are.
If less than a dozen people in your state died, at 1% mortality that's at least 1200 people infected, plus the 5-6 days incubation time.
Here in NL where I live the progression was something like 'extremely small chance it will come here' to 'overloaded ICU's' in the span of 3.5 weeks.
I must say I find it odd that in another thread I'm arguing with someone who wants me to come up with some kind of plan to keep ICU's running in the face of imminent disaster and you go out on your outing because of your imaginary friend.
Both of you are out of touch with reality in different ways in my opinion, and in both cases you're going to end up sorely disappointed long before this is all over.
If you keep this up you are going to endanger yourself and the people you love. The risk will go up until you win the lottery ticket, and then, likely you will end up occupying some of that scarce ICU capacity, effectively killing someone else.
You have to understand two things: The first is that the Mass is the greatest prayer that humans can offer to God, and that your potential death offering it is valuable as long as you were not tempting God in the process (which is why we aren't careless in the face of a virus). It is important to emphasize that we do NOT _seek out_ death, but rather, if we should die, that is rewarded.
The second thing is, what is there to fear about death? To quote the Eastertide Proclamation: "Where, Oh Death, is your sting?" If you believe in God and have served him with your life, what do you have to fear? This life is described as a "valley of tears," while "eye has not seen, ear has not heard, what God has in store for those who love him."
It's supposedly not a vending machine, from my understanding. It is a realization that you are limited either way in the grand scheme and a belief in a promise and meaning.
A priest was caught in a flood. Standing on the lawn outside his house, ankle-deep in water, he spoke to a group of men in a rubber life raft:
"I'm staying here. God will protect me."
Later, standing on the second floor of his house, he spoke again to a group of men in a search-and-rescue boat:
"I'm staying here. God will provide!"
Finally, the waters rose until they reached the roof of his house, and shouting to a Coast Guard rescue vessel, he insisted:
"I'M STAYING HERE! GOD WILL PROTECT ME!"
Some time later, the priest was waiting impatiently outside of the pearly gates, and when St. Peter allowed him through, he marched right up to God and demanded an explanation.
"I have been faithful all my life. I have served you in all your glory, O Lord, and you promised to keep me safe from harm. Why did you let me die?"
And the Lord spake thus: "You idiot, I sent you three ships!"
God does not expect you to give all unto Him. God expects you to take care of yourself. As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made to serve Man; there's no point in following practices that harm us. I firmly believe that this is a lesson many churches willfully ignore, which makes me sad, because it's really kind of the point of Jesus's whole journey.
Frankly, mega-churches are a perversion of Jesus's message to begin with, and I suspect their staff would be on the receiving end of a thorough whipping if Jesus were to enter one today. But given that the Second Coming hasn't happened yet, I humbly suggest that you learn from the priest caught in the flood, and recognize that God does not want to be a helicopter parent.
God does expect us to give all unto him. However, this does mean different status depending upon your state in life. If you are married, that doesn't mean enter a chapel 24/7. That would not please God. Instead, you please God by doing everything to be a virtuous husband/wife and by raising your children in a holy manner, and by doing your best to observe God's commandments.
And, finally, I agree with you that protestant mega-churches are a perversion of Jesus's message due to both doctrinal errors and attachment to money, and I fear that they will one day be like parable of the 10 virgins in the Bible:
"Later, the other virgins arrived and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he replied, ‘Truly I tell you, I do not know you.’"
I would be all up for this kind of voluntary natural selection if it didn't sweep up the people who didn't sign up for this shit.