Some days, I am embarrassed to call myself an atheist. It seems that some atheists revel is being as offensive as possible, Recently, Richard Dawkins tweeted;
Whatever your view is on abortion, Dawkins’ words are offensive and do nothing to help the atheist cause. I wish some atheists would think for a moment before they open their mouth or send out a blog post, tweet, or Facebook update.
so says Matt Barber, Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action and Associate Dean and Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at Liberty University School of Law.
Let’s see, using Barber’s logic, if abortion were illegal the next serial killer and mass murderer would be born and go on to commit heinous acts.
And this is what passes for logic these days in the Evangelical bubble.
If you play ANY part in aborting this:
Then, according to Fundamentalist Preacher, Tony Miano:
Miano supports the criminalization of abortion. If Miano believes in the death penalty then he supports the execution of anyone that played any part in a woman having an abortion, Miano writes:
I can imagine the ranting and raving unbelievers must be doing right now in front of their computer screens–especially the atheists who troll this site and then scurry back to their brethren to angrily wax un-eloquently with the false bravado of Internet anonymity. But I also wonder how many Christians just gasped. How many Christians just felt a knot in their stomachs? How many Christians just winced? How many Christians are already muttering reasons we shouldn’t go that far to end abortion?
Well, count me as one atheist who is not hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Miano’s view is not only insane but, if enacted, would turn our legal system upside down. Millions of people would be arrested and imprisoned and could face the death penalty. I could easily see drug companies, who manufacture birth control pills, prosecuted for manufacturing a murder drug.
Above all, God himself would have to be prosecuted for murder since 50-75% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Once the egg and sperm unite, God is obligated to make sure the pregnancy goes full-term. God murders more babies than all the abortionists combined.
Miano’s rhetoric is a reminder of why it is impossible to find any common ground on abortion. When people like Miano demonize anyone who does not share their view on abortion, it is impossible to find any common ground on which to work reduce the number of abortions.
Here are a few pictures I took on our Weekend Getaway to Findlay, Ohio.
Geese on the Blanchard River. Thanks to global climate change, the geese no longer migrate and are year-round residents. There were several thousand geese on the Blanchard and in a nearby field.
Geese on the Blanchard River
Geese flying overhead.
Findlay High School vs. Lima Shawnee High School Basketball game. I attended Findlay High School from 1971-1974.
Findlay High School vs. Lima Shawnee High School Basketball game.
A reminder that conservative Christianity rules the roost in NW Ohio. Abortion=murder.
Some people wrongly assume that I am against all religion, regardless of its expression. This is not the case. I am quite indifferent to most religions. I believe in freedom and liberty, and if a person wants to worship a deity I am not going to object or do anything to hinder their right to worship as they please. I may not understand why they worship the God they do, but I don’t have to understand it because it is none of my business.
However, when it comes to Evangelicalism, an inherently Fundamentalist religion, my opinion changes greatly. (and I view Fundamentalist Roman Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Jehovah’s Witnesses the same way)
If you ask an Evangelical why I am so “down” on them they will likely say:
When people makes these kinds of judgments they are saying to me, I don’t accept you at face value. I don’t accept your story as you tell it. They refuse to let me be who I am. Who better to know who and what I am? (more than one Evangelical has told me they know me better than I know myself)
Evangelicals have a narrow, well-defined worldview. There is little room for diversity within Evangelicalism. (unless you count traditional vs. contemporary a sign of diversity) Because of their commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, along with the high value they place on what the pastor says from the pulpit, Evangelicals live in a box that has little room for individual belief or intellectual disagreement.
For all their talk about the priesthood of the believer and everyone being able to have a personal relationship with God, the demand for conformity and obedience negates any sort of personal liberty.
What happens to people who wander outside the box? Most often they are marginalized or encouraged to find a different church. They are “lovingly” encouraged to find a church they can agree with.
The Bible is the bottom line for all Evangelicals. Everything is measured by, “thus saith the Lord.” Rarely do they consider that what they really mean is, “thus saith the Lord as I or my pastor interprets it.” Evangelicals tend to have a black and white view of the world, Either you are in or you are out. Saved or lost. Right with God or not right with God. There is little room for diversity or nuance.
Because of thinking this way, Evangelicals respond to my story by saying things like:
Instead of taking the story of my life as it is, Evangelicals are forced to parse my life by whatever theological paradigm they hold to. A Calvinist interprets my story differently than an Arminian and a Free-will Baptist interprets my life differently than an Independent Baptist.
Instead of just accepting that I was a Christian for almost 50 years, and that I was a devoted, consecrated, sanctified, committed, follower of Jesus Christ, and now I am not, they are forced to make the various theological judgments they make about my life. (in four years, I have never received a letter from a liberal or progressive Christian taking me to task about my story)
It is this narrow minded, at times closed minded, way of viewing the world that causes me to be “down” on Evangelicals. I don’t think it is a healthy way to look at the world and it hinders Evangelicals from being good citizens. (tolerant, accepting of other)
The Evangelical can not accept at face value people who are different from them. They can’t leave Muslims or Catholics alone because they need Jesus. They can’t leave homosexuals alone because they are living in sin. This is why Evangelicals love going to church. When they are at church, they are with their “own.” Everyone around them thinks the same way. They have the same lingo.
Years ago, I wrote a post titled the Evangelical Ghetto. I was still a Christian when I wrote the post. I detailed that Evangelicalism had become a walled-off ghetto, a sub-culture obsessed with avoiding the world. This is evidenced by all the “Christian” ministries Evangelicals have. They have their own bookstores, music, TV, radio, shops, dating site, sex toys, clubs, etc.
When I wrote this post, I chided Evangelicals over their avoidance of the world. I was of the opinion then, and I am of the same opinion today, Evangelicals need to close down the ghetto and go out into the world and get their hands dirty.
Instead, they hide behind the walls of their ghetto, throwing rocks at the people on the other side of the wall. They rail against homosexuals even even though they don’t know any. They rebuke and castigate liberal or progressive Christians over their interpretations of the Bible. The longer they hide behind the wall, the narrower and more self-righteous they become.
Take a look at the culture war in America. Who is it that is behind this war? In most every case it is Evangelicals. (and yes, I know there are exceptions)
And these are the reasons I am so down on Evangelicals.
note: I am aware I painted with a broad brush. I intended to do so. I am well of the fact that there are Evangelicals who oppose the things mentioned above. I am not willing to dig through the Evangelical garbage can to find something worth eating. The garbage is rotting and smells and it obfuscates any good food that might remain in the can.
Evangelicals with liberal or progressive social values would be better served if they left Evangelicalism and joined with religious groups that support their values. Evangelicalism can’t be saved.
Right-wing extremist, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, has issued a proclamation declaring January 22, 2013, Protect Life Day:
Text of Protect Life Day Proclamation
Wherever one may stand on the abortion issue, lying about what the law actually is in the United States is not helpful, and, from a Christian perspective, a sin.
Walker states that the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion for ANY reason for the full nine months of pregnancy. This is not true, and Walker knows it is not true.
Here is summary of Roe vs. Wade:
In deciding Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that a Texas statute forbidding abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional. The Court arrived at its decision by concluding that the issue of abortion and abortion rights falls under the right to privacy. In its opinion it listed several landmark cases where the court had previously found a right to privacy implied by the Constitution. The Court did not recognize a right to abortion in all cases:
State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
The Court held that a right to privacy existed and included the right to have an abortion. The court found that a mother had a right to abortion until viability, a point to be determined by the abortion doctor. After viability a woman can obtain an abortion for health reasons, which the Court defined broadly to include psychological well-being.
A central issue in the Roe case (and in the wider abortion debate in general) is whether human life or personhood begins at conception, birth, or at some point in between. The Court declined to make an attempt at resolving this issue, noting: “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Instead, it chose to point out that historically, under English and American common law and statutes, “the unborn have never been recognized …as persons in the whole sense” and thus the fetuses are not legally entitled to the protection afforded by the right to life specifically enumerated in the Fourteenth Amendment. So rather than asserting that human life begins at any specific point, the court simply declared that the State has a “compelling interest” in protecting “potential life” at the point of viability.
Wikipedia article that list current State regulation of abortion.
Culture warriors like Walker have no problem lying, fudging, or distorting facts to advance their agenda. They lose all credibility when they do so. We need to have a serious debate in America about abortion, but how can we as long as one side of the debate lies and calls all who disagree with them murderers guilty of human rights abuse.? (and I have little tolerance for the extreme pro-choice advocates who refuse to recognize there is a point when a fetus becomes a human and should have protection against medically unnecessary termination of life)
Please see my posts Abortion Facts, Lies, and Contradictions and If Abortion is Murder
This Letter to the Editor was recently published in the Defiance Crescent-News.
Dear Editor,
After the reelection of President Obama, Dr. Al Mohler, a noted right-wing Southern Baptist leader, told his followers that the American people had heard the right-wing message and rejected it.
Contrary to recent letters to the editor, the reason President Obama was reelected was not because right-wing Christians didn’t vote. They did vote, and as this election makes very clear, their numbers are no longer sufficient to carry a national election.
What is the message of the religious-right? Is it an inclusive message? Is it a message that broadly appeals to Americans?
The religious-right and the Republican Party are joined at the hip and the Republican Party’s unwillingness to sever this tie has led to embarrassing defeats in the last two Presidential elections.
Thanks to the religious right and the Tea Party, the Republican Party is now an extremist party dominated by white, aging, right-wing Christians. The Party is now known, like fundamentalist Christian churches are, for what they are against rather than what they are for.
As Mohler rightly understood, most Americans have rejected the right-wing exclusionary message. More and more Americans are coming to understand that mixing politics and religion is harmful to our Republic.
Groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a group I proudly support, continue to point out the unconstitutional entanglement of church and state in our schools and government entities. Every month the Freedom from Religion Foundation newsletter reports legal victories in cases concerning the separation of church and state. The courts continue, much to the consternation of the religious-right, to reaffirm the legal fact the United States is a secular state and there is a strict wall of separation between church and state.
20% of Americans are now considered “nones”, people who are indifferent to religion or are atheists or agnostics. What is most encouraging is that this percentage jumps to 34% for young adults. Young adults increasingly reject the bigoted, exclusionary message of right-wing Christianity (and by extension the Republican Party). On issues like homosexuality, abortion, immigration, socialized medicine, and war, young adults reject the message and values of right-wing Christianity.
I am encouraged by the changing beliefs and values of American young adults. I am profoundly glad that my six children have rejected the narrow, judgmental, exclusionary right-wing Christianity they were raised in. I have great hope that my eight grandchildren will grow up to be loving, accepting adults who do not judge others based on their religion, skin color, or sexual orientation.
In the Bible there is a story about King Belshazzar (Daniel 5). The Bible has this to say about Belshazzar’s kingdom: Thou art weighed in the balances and found wanting. This is exactly what is happening in America. The right-wing Christian message has been weighed in the balances and found wanting. Belshazzar lost his kingdom and exclusionary, bigoted right-wing Christians are losing theirs. This is good news for all who love freedom and liberty.
Sincerely,
Bruce Gerencser
Here are the FACTS about abortion:
Very few abortions occur at full-term. 88% of all abortions occur in the first trimester, with 61.8% occurring in the first nine weeks. 98.5% of abortions take place before viability. Late term abortions, after twenty weeks, are 1.5% of of all abortions (about 12,000 abortions)
Out of 1.2 million annual abortions, 12,000 are after 20 weeks. Most of these abortion are medically necessary due to health concerns of the mother, the fetus, or both.
These FACTS can be found at the Guttmacher Institute.
I realize that almost half of Americans are pro-Life, or at least when polled say they are pro-life. I am not at all convinced that as many people are pro-life as the polls suggest.
I wonder what how pro-lifers would respond to polling questions like this?
When faced with reality rather than political talking points I wonder how many people would actually stand by their no-exceptions anti-abortion stance?
Of course, many so-called pro-lifers say they support exemptions for rape, incest, and if the life of the mother is at stake. However, these exceptions are antithetical to the pro-life view. If life begins the moment the egg and sperm unite, then any abortion is the killing of a human life. It is inconsistent and hypocritical to call yourself pro-life and then turn right around and say, in some circumstances, it is permissible to kill the fetus.
According to anti-abortionists life begins at conception. At the very moment the sperm and egg unite a new life is created. Anti-abortionists are intractable when it comes to their position. Life begins at conception…end of debate.
Let me tell you a story……
This story takes place at the We Make Life Possible Fertility Clinic.
Sue gave birth to a beautiful baby girl through in vitro fertilization. Her baby girl is 1 month old . Sue stopped by the Fertility Clinic to show off her newborn to the Clinic staff.
While Sue was at the clinic a huge explosion rocked the place and the Clinic was engulfed in flames.
John, a pro-life activist, happened to be passing by the clinic when the explosion took place. John went running into the clinic hoping to perhaps save someone from the fire.
John had been to the We Make Possible Life Fertility Clinicbefore. His wife Mary had problems conceiving and the Clinic was able to help them conceive. Unfortunately, Mary miscarried a few months into the pregnancy.
John knew that the Clinic stores hundreds of fertilized eggs (embryos) in a freezer. As he entered the Clinic is saw Sue and her daughter huddled in a corner trying to get away from the fire. John thought “Surely I should save these two.”
But then John thought for a moment, and he realized that the fire was going to destroy all the frozen embryos. He told Sue and her baby sorryand rushed to the freezer where the frozen embryos were stored.
Through John’s heroic efforts hundreds of frozen embryos were saved,
Sadly, Mary and her newborn daughter died in the blaze.
Who among us would fault John? After all, he acted according to the greater good. Who wouldn’t save 200 lives at the expense of 2 lives.
The above story follows the logic of the life begins at conception viewpoint. There is no difference between 200 embryos and Sue and her baby. Life is life. It makes perfect sense for John to save the frozen embryos rather than Sue and her baby. Surely John would be praised for saving the 200 embryos. If the clinic is unable to reopen perhaps the frozen embryos can be put up for adoption. After all EVERY embryo is a life.
If life begins at conception, and terminating a pregnancy is the murder of a baby as Pro-Life zealots claim, then the following conclusions can be made:
- The woman who has the abortion is a murderer
- The doctor who performs the abortion is a murderer
- The nurse who helps with the abortion is a murderer
- The receptionist who books the abortion appointment is a murderer
If these conclusions are true then it means that none of these people will go to heaven when they die.
The Bible is clear:
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8
It is also clear, at least to me, that people who kill innocent men, women, and children in war are murderers too. Where are the same Pro-Life zealots proclaiming the evil of war?
It seems that killing a zygote is murder but killing an Afghan child or mother is not. It seems that the only life Pro-Lifer’s protect is that which has not yet been born.
I have come to the conclusion that Pro-Lifer’s who do not condemn war are guilty of facilitating murder. Pro-Lifer’s charge those who believe abortion should be rare, safe, and legal with facilitating murder. As Pro-Lifer’s make quite clear, those who promote and facilitate abortion cannot be Christians. How can they be since they are facilitating murder?
I ask the same about Pro-Lifer’s who promote and facilitate war. How can they be Christian and support the murder of innocent men, women, and children? It seems to me that Heaven is going to be quite empty if murderers are barred from entering. In fact, God the grandest murderer of them all, would be banned from Heaven, according to Revelation 21:8.
Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. Revelation 22:14,15
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Matthew 19:17-19
In about 17 months there will be a Presidential election. Republicans know they have a fight on their hands. They need to make sure that the faithful turn out in record numbers and vote for the Republican candidate. They need to appeal to the value voters, those who hold to right-wing political and social beliefs.
One of the key issues that will make it to the ballot in 2012 is whether or not a fertilized egg is a person. Personhood USAis circulating petitions in all 50 states hoping to get politicians to enact personhood laws. According to Rachel Maddow there are already eight states debating personhood legislation and with 2012 being a Presidential election year it is quite likely that there will be a concerted effort to get Personhood initiatives on the ballot.
One of the implications of Personhood laws is that they could make the use of birth control pills illegal. (since birth control pills are an abortifacient and can, and do cause spontaneous abortion) 46 years ago in Griswold v. Connecticut the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the right of privacy extended to the use of contraceptives and states could not ban the sale of contraceptives. (it is hard to believe there was a time where selling birth control was illegal)
Personhood laws could upend not only Roe v. Wade but Griswold v. Connecticut. If a fertilized egg is a person then any deliberate effort to kill the fertilized egg would be considered murder. A quick perusal of The Pill Killswebsite will make it clear that the Personhood crowd is dead alive serious.
What is the implication of a Personhood law?
- All abortion would be illegal, including abortion in the case of rape and incest
- Abortion to save the life of the mother would be outlawed since it is illegal to murder one person to save another
- Using any form of birth control that is an abortifacient would be illegal
- Our entire legal code would need to be rewritten to reflect that a fertilized egg is a person
- A person causing a woman to miscarry would be charged with murder.
- Parents would be able to claim the fertilized egg as a dependent on their income tax return
- Fertilized eggs would be eligible for adoption
- Stem cell research would be curtailed and possibly even banned
I can imagine a new Evangelical evangelism outreach to fertilized eggs. “Winning People to Jesus, One Fertilized Egg at a Time.”
We must not sit on the sidelines while right-wing Christians attempt to push their social agenda down the throat of the American people. We must consistently, and continually point out that Personhood laws are fraught with legal implications that will turn the legal code into a mine field.
Right-wing Christians are not going away. Obama being elected President was a stern rebuke and they have no intentions of sitting idly by and letting liberal, fertilized egg killing Democrats win in 2012. I expect a vicious fight not only on the Federal level but the State and Local level too.
Put the Bible away. Put away all the religious presuppositions about what life is. Look at the graphic below. Is what you see a baby and that by aborting it you are committing murder?
Only those blinded by their religious ideology can conclude that this is a picture of a baby. At best it is potential life but not life itself.
Now let me get personal for a moment.
If you believe people who support a woman’s right to an abortion are murderers or evil people then why do you have anything to do with me? If this is your view then why would you want to be anywhere near a neighbor, friend, husband, father, father-in-law, or grandfather like me who is a m-u-r-d-e-r-e-r? IF I am a murderer, and I support the murder of over a million babies a year, (your word not mine) then aren’t I just as evil as Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy?
Of course I am not and that’s the problem with your shrill rhetoric. I am a kind, decent, loving neighbor, friend, husband, father, father-in-law and grandfather. Yes I am an atheist but I am more “Christian” than many of the Christians you know.
How about asking me WHY I support a woman’s right to an abortion? If asked, you would find out that:
I am an atheist. I don’t believe in God, I don’t believe what the Bible teaches. My beliefs are not governed by the Bible. When I came to the view I now hold on abortion it was because of the science behind the abortion debate.
I am also a father, father-in-law, and a grandfather. If ANY of the women in my family were raped or were carrying a fetus that could cost them their lives, I would want them to have access to every medical and psychological means necessary to help them. I am most concerned for the LIVING.
I didn’t come to this position easily. I have a daughter with Down Syndrome. I know many women have an abortion when they find out they are carrying a fetus with Down's. I can’t imagine our life without Bethany. My brother was born three months premature, not too many weeks past the viability line. I can’t imagine life without my little brother.
My point is this…everything doesn’t fit neatly in a pro-life or pro-choice box. Life is messy and we are forced to make hard decisions all the time. This post is an attempt to get people to see that it is simplistic and offensive when people label me as a murderer or evil. (and when you say people who support abortion are murderers or evil you ARE saying I am a murderer or evil)
I have long since come to the conclusion that there is no common ground to be had with people who are pro-life. (and Mike I am not talking about you) They start with religion rather than science and I see no way of finding common ground.
I understand the pro-life view, I really do. I was pro-life for most of my adult life. I fully understand the why’s of being pro-life. I know all the proof-texts and I think the Bible readily supports the pro-life view. (and the pro-slavery, pro-polygamy, pro-incest, pro-genocide view too)
I understand where you are coming from. Now it is time for you to give me the same courtesy.
Warning! Adult language. Do not read if you are easily offended. (stop scrolling so fast it is not that racy)
Female, Male, Hermaphrodite
Homosexual,Heterosexual, Bisexual, Asexual
Pornography, Prostitution
Adultery, Fornication
Masturbation, Anal sex, Oral Sex
Marriage,Same Sex Marriage, Divorce, Living Together, Hooking Up, Friends with Benefits
Age of Consent, Marriageable Age, Birth Control, Abortion
These are but a few terms and issues associated with discussions about gender, sex, and sexuality.
When these things are discussed, debated, and argued about each of us bring our own baggage to the discussion. Our religious, political, cultural beliefs and experiences often color our ability to have a rational discussion about these things. The things we have experienced in the past and the things people close to us have experienced often affects how we view issues like gender, sex, and sexuality.
These issues are hot-button issues and, far too often, discussions about them quickly devolve into posturing, drawing lines, and name calling.
Words like misogynist, sexist, homophobic, womanizer, abuser, user, and pervert are bandied about carelessly with little or no regard to the harm these words can cause. Granted, there are times that these labels are warranted, but sometimes we are too quick to attach derogatory labels to people without trying to understand where they are coming from.
Take Prostitution. I support the legalization of prostitution. What two (or more) consenting adults do sexually to or with each other is of no concern to me. I support health and licensing requirements but beyond that I consider prostitution to be a victimless crime.
When I write about my view on prostitution, I am often told that I am supporting the objectification of women and that I am supporting actions that demean and debase women.
No, what I am supporting is the right for adults to sexually do what they want without the religious beliefs or social conventions of others getting in the way. Often objectification is in the eye of the beholder. For example, many employers objectify their employees, treating them as a means to an end.
Take the issue of marriage. Again, I am indifferent to many of the objections people have when it comes to marriage. I am of the opinion that people should be treated equally under the law and matters beyond that are not anyone’s business.
Marriage is a contract and every party is free to determine the terms of the contract. Is it wrong for a married man to have sex outside of marriage? It depends on the terms of the contract he has with his wife. I know of several marriages where the woman is quite happy if the man has a mistress or frequents prostitutes.They have no interest in sex and their reasons for marrying were financial stability and companionship.
We need to remember that gender, sex, and sexuality are complex issues, complicated by the baggage we bring to the discussion. If we remember this, hopefully we will not be so quick to lambast those who have a different view than we do. We must also make sure we do not confuse a differing view on sex and sexuality with a person’s morality. My support of prostitution does not mean I use the services of a prostitute. It does mean, I make no moral judgment about people who do, and I most certainly do not make any moral judgment about a man or woman who decides to earn a living providing sexual services.
We all need to carefully think about these issues. Sadly, too many people let the TV do their thinking for them. Again, take prostitution. Most people have never sought out the services of a prostitute and most people don’t know anyone who is a prostitute. Unless they carefully think about and research this issue they will likely have a distorted view.
How does TV portray prostitution? Either they show the prostitute as a drop-dead gorgeous woman making 5,000 a night or a teeth falling out meth head who will screw anyone for 20 bucks. While both of these portrayals are true, they are the exception to the rule. Contrary to how the TV portrays them, most prostitutes do not have a black pimp with a gold tooth that beats them for not turning enough tricks. Does this happen? Yes, and it is regrettable, but we must not assume this is how it is for all prostitutes. (especially in countries and localities where prostitution is legalized)
The truth is most people become prostitutes for the money. In many ways we all are prostitutes. We go to work every day…why? For the money. Like with most things in life, it is all about the money.
I look forward to your comments.
