[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by P 

That's a weird map. Back before the fall of the Iron Curtain, there was frequently a Western and Eastern, with Eastern being the Warsaw block + Yugoslavia, and Western being the rest (including Greece, which is pretty far to the east. These days it is sometimes split up a bit more, but if Scandinavia is off on its own then Western Europe also doesn't include Spain and Portugal.

Plus, Japan was counted as a Western ally in the Far East …
I think the separation is quite vague for countries at the border. (One dirty little secret that the Austrians keep is that Vienna lies further to the East than Prague … ) I also don't think the distinction pertinent to the discussion here.

[subego]

I used Western Europe because that allowed me to make my claim with minimal qualifications.

As I have hopefully demonstrated, I'm more than willing to expand the borders.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I used Western Europe because that allowed me to make my claim with minimal qualifications.

As I have hopefully demonstrated, I'm more than willing to expand the borders.

It was more a comment to CPT as he argued to exclude the Scandinavian countries.

[subego]

Based on my original statement, which also excluded them.

When I said "Western Europe", of the Scandinavian countries, I was only including Denmark.

IOW, the places where population density is too high for what is "rural" to be considered comparable with rural in the US.

This is not the case with the rest of Scandinavia, but as I theorized above, rural Scandinavia isn't producing food staples.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It was more a comment to CPT as he argued to exclude the Scandinavian countries.

It isn't part of W. Europe, it's "Scandinavia" or the "Scandinavian countries", a distinct area unto its own.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yeah, but neither slurpee machine nor church are stopping a migration towards urban centers, so why do you think religion is more successful at keeping people there? (Not that I think it is the job of religion to guilt people into staying where they are.) Because in your mind people who haven't left rural Nebraska cling to religion more strongly than people in the city to give them a sense of identity?

Why would a centuries old institution concerned with the physical and spiritual well-being of its members be more successful at maintaining social cohesion than a spontaneously created hangout?

I feel that answers its own question. One's a centuries old institution concerned with the physical and spiritual well-being of its members, and the other is a spontaneously created hangout based on high fructose corn syrup.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Why would a centuries old institution concerned with the physical and spiritual well-being of its members be more successful at maintaining social cohesion than a spontaneously created hangout?

The structures of the Christian Churches were built on top the remnants of the Roman Empire, subsuming some of their functions. And now that the core beliefs of Churches have continued to diverge from what the average population believes is ethical, religion is losing their grip on society. If you only meet for a barn fire in the church yard to hang out, does it really matter that it is a church?

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not sure I can put this in a non-offensive way, but if religion gives a sense of meaning or purpose for life (where the irreligious may not have one), it's logical to think it can extend that power to community, regardless of whether or not it's rooted in nonsense.
Edit: I.e., you see people gathering for a bonfire, but the bonfire isn't the real impetus behind the gathering it's still the church.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The structures of the Christian Churches were built on top the remnants of the Roman Empire, subsuming some of their functions. And now that the core beliefs of Churches have continued to diverge from what the average population believes is ethical, religion is losing their grip on society. If you only meet for a barn fire in the church yard to hang out, does it really matter that it is a church?

How much it matters is wholly dependent upon how devout the community is, no?

For a community who has ethically diverged from the Church, the local church holds no more importance than any other social institution. For a community who hasn't diverged, will not the importance of the local church be vastly different?

Asking if there is a difference between the convenience store and the local church in an ethically divergent community is a reasonable question. The answer is there is very little.

I then feel like I'm being posed the same question with the non-divergent community, and it's somehow surprising the answer is different.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How much it matters is wholly dependent upon how devout the community is, no?

The demographic trends are clear: people tend to move away from the countryside, especially young ones, become more socially liberal, and what remains are the more conservative people. So I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the attachment to religion, at least in some spiritual way, is probably quite high, but that the total numbers are dwindling. I can see how you can conclude from that, that religion is what keeps these communities together.

Originally Posted by subego 

For a community who has ethically diverged from the Church, the local church holds no more importance than any other social institution. For a community who hasn't diverged, will not the importance of the local church be vastly different?
[...]
I then feel like I'm being posed the same question with the non-divergent community, and it's somehow surprising the answer is different.

Even then I wouldn't say vastly different, because church still has a social function, and if other institutions take over that social function (even if it is just a hangout), I believe this weakens people's attachment to the church.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not sure I can put this in a non-offensive way, but if religion gives a sense of meaning or purpose for life (where the irreligious may not have one), it's logical to think it can extend that power to community, regardless of whether or not it's rooted in nonsense.
Edit: I.e., you see people gathering for a bonfire, but the bonfire isn't the real impetus behind the gathering it's still the church.

I don't think there is an answer for everybody here, because some people seem to need religion to fill a hole. I personally don't feel the need to appeal to a higher power to give meaning to my life. And for some people religion is helpful to overcome hardship, while for others the opposite is true. One size doesn't fit all, and that's fine, but I think this is an equivocal argument at the end of the day.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The demographic trends are clear: people tend to move away from the countryside, especially young ones, become more socially liberal, and what remains are the more conservative people. So I think it is not unreasonable to assume that the attachment to religion, at least in some spiritual way, is probably quite high, but that the total numbers are dwindling. I can see how you can conclude from that, that religion is what keeps these communities together.

Even then I wouldn't say vastly different, because church still has a social function, and if other institutions take over that social function (even if it is just a hangout), I believe this weakens people's attachment to the church.

Rural churches are the local moral authority, the local spiritual authority, they (as mentioned) act as a place for socialization (along with business networking), and most importantly they behave as the community safety net.

This in an all-in-one pre-existing, well established package. No spontaneous creation needed.

On top of it, unless one likes their eternity very warm, the package includes built-in incentive to participate. This includes participation in the more onerous demands, such as being nice to the asshole from the next farm over, contributing a fair share to the community safety net, and, to bring it back to the main thesis... adhering to a value system which argues staying in the community is a life well lived.


I claim there aren't alternative rural institutions to serve many of these functions.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I claim there aren't alternative rural institutions to serve many of these functions.

Maybe because the churches have worked hard to position themselves as they have. You don't need to waste public money on a town hall if the church already has one it lets everyone use. Etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe because the churches have worked hard to position themselves as they have. You don't need to waste public money on a town hall if the church already has one it lets everyone use. Etc.

"Worked hard" implies premeditated effort to supplant other options, as opposed to the other options being inferior.

Such as the other options being a waste of money because they duplicate existing services.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yes, worked hard is probably unfair in this instance. In many cases the churches will have monopolised these services a very long time ago when they were the only ones who could possibly afford to build them or perhaps to bring people together to collaborate on them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, worked hard is probably unfair in this instance. In many cases the churches will have monopolised these services a very long time ago when they were the only ones who could possibly afford to build them or perhaps to bring people together to collaborate on them.

Or, the service the church provides is flat-out superior to the alternative.

The worldly example is as the community safety net. It can be funded as needed and is several orders of magnitude more reactive than the alternative, which is reliance on a distant government who (by necessity) is more focused on the 80-some percent of voters living in the sprawl.

The less worldly example is the ethical code upon which Christianity insists. Relevant to the above, this code is responsible for the existence of, and incentivizes participation in, the aforementioned safety net. Relevant to my thesis, this code calls for its adherents to place less value on worldly pursuits in general. This works to make many of the worldly advantages of the city less attractive, while at the same time making the sacrifice of those advantages a worthwhile pursuit.

If there is a secular construct capable of achieving this, I am not aware of it.

[Waragainstsleep]

There is certainly less structure and pressure behind it, but the limited social reach in isolated places with smaller populations forms a safety net automatically. In a town where everyone knows everyone, and most people understand most of the problems their friends and neighbours face, they are more likely to rally to them when they need help. Because they also understand how easily they might find themselves needing the help of the community. In big cities, the anonymity gives you license to ignore people you don't know because they might just be lying to get something for nothing.

The church certainly encourages such cooperation, you might even credit them with inspiring it by leading by example, but i think its mostly an accelerant rather than a sole supplier. And of course since they got there first in many cases when it comes to facilities, no-one else has needed to step up.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

There is certainly less structure and pressure behind it, but the limited social reach in isolated places with smaller populations forms a safety net automatically. In a town where everyone knows everyone, and most people understand most of the problems their friends and neighbours face, they are more likely to rally to them when they need help. Because they also understand how easily they might find themselves needing the help of the community. In big cities, the anonymity gives you license to ignore people you don't know because they might just be lying to get something for nothing.

The church certainly encourages such cooperation, you might even credit them with inspiring it by leading by example, but i think its mostly an accelerant rather than a sole supplier. And of course since they got there first in many cases when it comes to facilities, no-one else has needed to step up.

My final sentence could have been more precise. Religion isn't the sole provider, it's the best provider. The safety net can be provided by secular means. The religious safety net provides it along with an accelerant.

It also supplies a means of socialization, a means of arbitrating petty community squabbles, makes the benefits of the city less attractive, and makes the monotony of the country more attractive... all in one package which costs the taxpayers nothing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yes, worked hard is probably unfair in this instance. In many cases the churches will have monopolised these services a very long time ago when they were the only ones who could possibly afford to build them or perhaps to bring people together to collaborate on them.

The structure of the Christian Churches in Europe were built on the remnants of the Roman Empire, and they took over some of the functions that the Roman bureaucracy was responsible for. So while they did work hard to maintain their position, they built that on top of a sizable inheritance.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The structure of the Christian Churches in Europe were built on the remnants of the Roman Empire, and they took over some of the functions that the Roman bureaucracy was responsible for. So while they did work hard to maintain their position, they built that on top of a sizable inheritance.

And after many centuries for the development of alternatives, I posit the functions Christianity remains responsible for in a rural setting are the functions at which it naturally excels.

Christianity excels because it doesn't need to work hard in order to assume these functions. They're an organic outgrowth of Christianity's core ethics.

[Waragainstsleep]

You say best, I say first.

[subego]

They're not exclusive.

[el chupacabra]

… …

[Waragainstsleep]

That was essentially my point. The social ties are stronger than in populated areas. Better put though.

If the church is the one that built the town hall or the public basketball courts or whatever, its because they had the money when local government didn't. Plus they likely get a favourable discount from local construction firms so its cheaper for them too. And when government comes into money, why replace something you have when you can get something else to go with it and have both?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

And after many centuries for the development of alternatives, I posit the functions Christianity remains responsible for in a rural setting are the functions at which it naturally excels.

The role of Christianity in government has been diminishing significantly over the centuries because of the secularization of states. One of the mile stones in this regard is your Little Republic

Originally Posted by subego 

Christianity excels because it doesn't need to work hard in order to assume these functions. They're an organic outgrowth of Christianity's core ethics.

No, I don't think so. This can be explained just by looking at the sense of community in these tight-knit communities. People know each other, and moving away would mean leaving and thereby letting down your folks and buddies. You claim there is a religious impetus behind not leaving, and I just don't see it. There is no Christian core ethic that demands people to stay and suffer with their families. The presence of churches even necessarily doesn't say anything about how religious these people are, just that existing structures are used.

[subego]

@el chupacabra, waragainstsleep, and OreoCookie.

Do not the following three tenets of Christianity act as a positive influence on the health of a rural town?

The importance of family
The importance of community
The importance of the spiritual over the material

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

@el chupacabra, waragainstsleep, and OreoCookie.

Do not the following three tenets of Christianity act as a positive influence on the health of a rural town?

The importance of family
The importance of community
The importance of the spiritual over the material

None of these values are particular to Christianity, these are universal. Any culture places values on family, community and emphasizes the importance of non-material things (such as friendship and happiness). Plus, your list is hierarchical, and if your family is more important to you than your neighbor, I see that as a “commandment” to try and offer at least their children a better life than their own. I don't see how you can derive from these principles that people should stay.

The happiness and health of a town is not the same as the happiness and health of its people, and I don't see why towns have to live for forever. If you are in a coal mining town, and coal is on its way out, the town will die — unless it reinvents itself. I would even say, it should die so that I makes room for something new. That's the cycle of life. But that doesn't mean the people who make up this town have to die with it, no, they just have to go to where the opportunities are. They owe it to their family and their communities.

[subego]

I'm not seeing just "any" culture place value on the importance of family by declaring birth control as an affront to God's plan.

Any culture places value on the importance of family... some more than others, no?

[subego]

As an aside, my (Catholic) mom has two sisters and five brothers... there's a reason for that.

One of her brothers married into a (Catholic) family of 18(!) children. That's almost 14 years spent pregnant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm not seeing just "any" culture place value on the importance of family by declaring birth control as an affront to God's plan.

That's not true. Many cultures place limitations on women's reproductive rights. It took Japan 34 years (!) to approve the birth control pill, and it finally did so in 1999. Wanna take a guess how long it took for Viagra to be approved? Six months. If you want to have the pill, you need a prescription for every single month. Which means you need to go and see a doctor on a monthly basis. Very few women in Japan take the pill, contraception is done mostly by condoms.

Originally Posted by subego 

Any culture places value on the importance of family... some more than others, no?

No, I don't think Christianity is special in the way it places value on family and community. It's a common sense thing such as “don't steal” and ”don't kill”.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's not true. Many cultures place limitations on women's reproductive rights. It took Japan 34 years (!) to approve the birth control pill, and it finally did so in 1999. Wanna take a guess how long it took for Viagra to be approved? Six months. If you want to have the pill, you need a prescription for every single month. Which means you need to go and see a doctor on a monthly basis. Very few women in Japan take the pill, contraception is done mostly by condoms.

No, I don't think Christianity is special in the way it places value on family and community. It's a common sense thing such as “don't steal” and ”don't kill”.

What makes the flavors of Christianity under discussion distinctive is not they place value on family, but the restrictions they enforce which reflect that value.

One institution chops off the hands of thieves, the other throws them in jail. They both adhere to the value "don't steal".

One institution heavily regulates guns, the other does not. They both adhere to the value "don't kill".

One institution insists abstinence from all contraceptives, the other does not. They both adhere to the value of familial importance.

I don't understand how Japan is an analogous example at all. Japan puts control over contraception in the hands of men. This is quite distinct from not allowing any contraception, and will have a markedly different effect on the communities in question.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What makes the flavors of Christianity under discussion distinctive is not they place value on family, but the restrictions they enforce which reflect that value.

That's very different from what you claimed before: you singled out Christianity's focus on family, society and immaterial things as characteristic traits, even though it is not. Every culture (including every local flavor or Christianity) interprets what that actually means very differently.

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't understand how Japan is an analogous example at all. Japan puts control over contraception in the hands of men. This is quite distinct from not allowing any contraception, and will have a markedly different effect on the communities in question.

Most societies, including those where one of the three Abrahamic religions is dominant, is paternalistic, that is the common trait. And that shows that it Christianity isn't special in this regard. Moreover, you claim that not allowing any contraception is representative of Christianity as a whole. That's just false. There are plenty of Christian churches which officially condone the use of contraception including the pill (e. g. the German Evangelische Kirche, the organization for the protestant churches in Germany). Even many Catholic institutions do not enforce this point in their region of influence, because that'd be something that neither the people on the ground nor the population believes in (even though they afoul with the official position of the Vatican).

Why do you insist that Christianity is a special snowflake regarding the issues we are discussing here?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

As an aside, my (Catholic) mom has two sisters and five brothers... there's a reason for that.

One of her brothers married into a (Catholic) family of 18(!) children. That's almost 14 years spent pregnant.

Its just about keeping their numbers up. A family that is too big will suffer because individuals will get less attention and resources spent on them. What you are claiming is for the good of the family is not really any such thing. Its just another aspect of religion maintaining control and relevance. You used to have kids because two thirds of them would die before they were ten and/or you needed farm hands or other workers. The reasons for large families are varied from culture to culture and place to place and do not stand still over time either. And we can see that what started as social structure (and in fact as insurance against god's usual plans) was taken over by religion and then re-branded for its own purpose. Like usual.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its just about keeping their numbers up. A family that is too big will suffer because individuals will get less attention and resources spent on them. What you are claiming is for the good of the family is not really any such thing. Its just another aspect of religion maintaining control and relevance. You used to have kids because two thirds of them would die before they were ten and/or you needed farm hands or other workers. The reasons for large families are varied from culture to culture and place to place and do not stand still over time either. And we can see that what started as social structure (and in fact as insurance against god's usual plans) was taken over by religion and then re-branded for its own purpose. Like usual.

It seems to me in a rural setting, this is where the resource drain of a large family will have the least impact, and also happens to be where farm hands are needed.

I'll cop to a poorly phrased question, but the thesis under discussion is how any given institution affects the health of the overall community.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's very different from what you claimed before: you singled out Christianity's focus on family, society and immaterial things as characteristic traits, even though it is not. Every culture (including every local flavor or Christianity) interprets what that actually means very differently.

Most societies, including those where one of the three Abrahamic religions is dominant, is paternalistic, that is the common trait. And that shows that it Christianity isn't special in this regard. Moreover, you claim that not allowing any contraception is representative of Christianity as a whole. That's just false. There are plenty of Christian churches which officially condone the use of contraception including the pill (e. g. the German Evangelische Kirche, the organization for the protestant churches in Germany). Even many Catholic institutions do not enforce this point in their region of influence, because that'd be something that neither the people on the ground nor the population believes in (even though they afoul with the official position of the Vatican).

Why do you insist that Christianity is a special snowflake regarding the issues we are discussing here?

I should have qualified the question better. The flavors of Christianity I'm discussing are the ones popular in rural environments, which tend towards being conservative, and hence hold a "no contraception" policy.

I consider a "no contraception" policy to be a special snowflake position because of how few institutions hold said policy. Japan certainly doesn't hold it. Is not Japan responsible for the highest condom usage per capita in the world?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

It seems to me in a rural setting, this is where the resource drain of a large family will have the least impact, and also happens to be where farm hands are needed.

It's quite universal that people with lower education, living in rural areas, have more children than well-educated parents living in the suburbs or the city. That's as true in India as in Indiana.

Originally Posted by subego 

I should have qualified the question better. The flavors of Christianity I'm discussing are the ones popular in rural environments, which tend towards being conservative, and hence hold a "no contraception" policy.

Causation ≠ effect. When I wrote “flavors of Christianity” I meant Catholicism vs. Lutherism, for example, not Catholics in the city vs. those on the countryside.

Originally Posted by subego 

I consider a "no contraception" policy to be a special snowflake position because of how few institutions hold said policy. Japan certainly doesn't hold it. Is not Japan responsible for the highest condom usage per capita in the world?

A go forth and prosper attitude is extremely common, e. g. you see it in Hasidic Jews or for many Muslims. In Japan, people also used to have many children, but when the country developed, people had less and less children for the same reasons people in US or European cities do: children, especially if you include the cost for higher education are very expensive.

[Waragainstsleep]

Also Japan didn't legalise the contraceptive pill until 1999 I think and it requires a prescription that must be renewed monthly. Hence they mostly stick with condoms.

[andi*pandi]

that is ridiculous.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

that is ridiculous.

This continues in tax law and the health insurance system. But that's for another thread, though.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I should have qualified the question better. The flavors of Christianity I'm discussing are the ones popular in rural environments, which tend towards being conservative, and hence hold a "no contraception" policy.

I've always seen the contraception issue drawn along a Catholic/Protestant line, not a rural/urban one.

[subego]

Assuming one considers evangelicals to be Protestant, I don't think that divide holds up.

My understanding is evangelical denominations have a disproportionate representation amongst rural communities.

Full disclosure: I am not a denominational expert.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Also Japan didn't legalise the contraceptive pill until 1999 I think and it requires a prescription that must be renewed monthly. Hence they mostly stick with condoms.

In general, I'm willing to accept the possibility I'm wrong about things because that's often the case, but I feel this is one I'm going to be forced to be obstinate on.

How is a community which is the world leader in condom use even remotely analogous to one which frowns upon all contraception?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Assuming one considers evangelicals to be Protestant, I don't think that divide holds up.

My experience is wholly evangelical, and although they're vehemently against extra-marital sex, I've never heard anyone condemn contraception within the confines of marriage. I'd need a source on that. Do typical evangelical beliefs virtually guarantee partners enter marriage unequipped and uninformed? Sure. But like I said, I haven't heard anyone decry birth control.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Assuming one considers evangelicals to be Protestant, I don't think that divide holds up.

My understanding is evangelical denominations have a disproportionate representation amongst rural communities.

Full disclosure: I am not a denominational expert.

The evangelical campaign against birth control is really about Obama - Salon.com

Still, the idea that birth control was abortive was rarely talked about among evangelicals, even though the idea that life begins at conception was doctrine at places like the Southern Baptist Convention. “It is evident,” wrote Southern Baptist Ethics Professor Kenneth Magnuson in 2003, “that there is no well-defined evangelical position on contraception.” Others went further. Dr. Allan Carlson of Hillsdale College noted in a 2012 New York Times article that “as recently as “10 or 20 years ago,” rejection of birth control “would have been an immediate no” for nearly all Protestants.” As recently as 2008, evangelical pastor Mark Driscoll argued that “even Focus on the Family and the Christian Medical and Dental Associations (CMDA) are undecided on the issue … As a result, it seems legalistic and inappropriate to declare that use of the pill is sinful.” Polls in 2009 and 2010 showed that 90% of evangelical leaders and the evangelical populace viewed birth control as morally acceptable.

Evangelicals are against morning-after "abortion" pills, and especially Obamacare's mandate that employer-provided health care pay for these pseudo-abortions. But evangelical organizations haven't taken a hard stance against birth control.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

In general, I'm willing to accept the possibility I'm wrong about things because that's often the case, but I feel this is one I'm going to be forced to be obstinate on.

How is a community which is the world leader in condom use even remotely analogous to one which frowns upon all contraception?

I just meant that they are bigger condom users because they don't use pills very often at all. I imagine if we didn't have the various hormonal contraceptive options then we'd use more condoms too. Wasn't making any comparisons.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

In general, I'm willing to accept the possibility I'm wrong about things because that's often the case, but I feel this is one I'm going to be forced to be obstinate on.

How is a community which is the world leader in condom use even remotely analogous to one which frowns upon all contraception?

You're drawing the wrong analogies: the question is not contraception per se, but how paternalism manifests itself in different cultures. Contraception is literally a tiny facet of this. Even within Christianity, there is a huge variation. The US isn't a very Catholic country, only certain communities are predominantly Catholic. I don't think there is a uniformly negative image of contraception in other Christian churches (especially when the discussion is limited to sex within the confines of marriage).

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

My experience is wholly evangelical, and although they're vehemently against extra-marital sex, I've never heard anyone condemn contraception within the confines of marriage. I'd need a source on that. Do typical evangelical beliefs virtually guarantee partners enter marriage unequipped and uninformed? Sure. But like I said, I haven't heard anyone decry birth control.

My apologies... I'm apparently lumping in the more over-the-top evangelicals with the mainstream ones.

Though I guess it's still a valid point WRT Mormons and those Arby's Amish.

[Waragainstsleep]

Are the Amish averse to the contraception or the technology? Maybe they are allowed to use the old pig bladder condoms? Or stomach or whatever it was.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm apparently lumping in the more over-the-top evangelicals

Like who? Is there a specific denomination that speaks out against birth control?

[subego]

The Quiverfull gang.