Would You Sign?

The following post is not meant to offend or make anyone uncomfortable, especially my friends who hold to different beliefs. However, please understand that there are times when we must speak out for the things we value.
Check back later for more crazy posts about crazy stuff.

The Declaration

As we enter into the last few days before a presidential election, we need to be in prayer for our country. The future direction of our country could literally be at stake, and that is a view held by people on both sides of the political isle.

But as a believer in Christ, I feel it is my duty to encourage those in leadership to guide this great nation down a path that secures basic liberties and promotes certain values I hold dear. That is why I signed the Manhattan Declaration.

What is the Manhattan Declaration? It is a “call of Christian conscience.” The following is a quote from ManhattanDeclaration.org

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family. It was in this tradition that a group of prominent Christian clergy, ministry leaders, and scholars released the Manhattan Declaration on November 20, 2009 at a press conference in Washington, DC. The 4,700-word declaration speaks in defense of the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty. It issues a clarion call to Christians to adhere firmly to their convictions in these three areas.

Not a Compromiser

Some good friends of mine have decided not to sign this document for fear of giving the wrong impression, the impression of theological compromise. They believe that by signing it they would be supporting the furtherance of key doctrinal differences and error. Specifically, some have expressed fear that signing this document would show support for the Catholic church. However, that is not what this is about.

I have signed this document, as have many other solidly conservative evangelicals, such as Dr. Daniel Akin, Kay Arthur, Dr. Michael Easley, Dr. Al Mohler, Chuck Swindoll, and Ravi Zacharias. None of these people are promoting a different belief system, nor am I. But what we are doing is siding with others who hold to the same cherished beliefs regarding the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty.

Let Your Voice Be Heard

Please, just take a moment or two and read the Manhattan Declaration.  If you do not agree with it, then don’t sign it. If you do not support the values it promotes, then don’t sign it.

But, if you do agree with it….well, you know what to do.

Advertisements

36 Comments

Filed under America, Christian Living, Christian Unity, Culture Wars, Defending Traditional Marriage, Defining Marriage, the future, World View

36 responses to “Would You Sign?

  1. “…there are times when we must speak out for the things we value.”

    I agree 100%. And I fully support your ability to do so.

    With that said…

    Allowing homosexuals to marry one another is not tantamount to forcing you to admit that it’s okay, or not sinful, or whatever. You’re free to continue believing whatever you want about homosexuals, however inane. They, on the other hand, should be able to pursue happiness in their lives in a manner they see fit.

    To clarify: this doesn’t mean forcing churches to marry homosexuals. It doesn’t mean Christians need to change their ideas about homosexuals (though, from a common sense standpoint, I think they should, but that’s another matter). It doesn’t mean that ANYTHING changes for Christians or any other religious group. It just means that people who aren’t like you get to enjoy legal entitlements you already enjoy.

    To extrapolate how this idea works:

    You said, as I quoted, that there are time when it’s important to speak out for the things we value. You realize this is a two-way street, right?

    I value reasoned and rational, evidence-based worldviews. I value the spirit of inquiry. I value individual freedom of and from religion.

    By this line of logic, I should be free to force my values of unbelief on you, in the same way you force your values of belief on homosexuals.

    But I don’t do that…because I’m better than that.

    If you don’t like homosexuals getting married…why not just not marry a homosexual?

    Why is that so hard?

  2. I just across this relevant cartoon. It’s also from the Chattanooga Times.

    • Andrew, I know you have to be an alright guy, but you’re making me tired. You and I both know that this biased caricature is not me. And the poor widdle other guy is not the cursing and vulgar protestors that show up at conservative events.

      I am not forcing anyone to believe anything. Believe what you want on this issue, as will I. Then speak your mind, as will I. Then hopefully, because we live in a representative democracy, the most accepted opinion will prevail. That is the purpose, incidentally, of the document. Some will agree; some won’t.

      Now, if you want to go after somebody, go after the Westboro Baptists, or the ACLU. Go talk to George Soros, for that matter. There are people out there who DO want to force their beliefs on others, but it’s not be. I’m perfectly happy living in a republic that champions freedom OF thought, not FROM it. This is not a theocracy, nor Shariaville, and that’s the way I’d like it to stay.

      • Well, now, hold on a sec…

        You don’t want a theocracy yet you advocate legislation based on theology (marriage definition laws, etc) How does that work?

        And you’re not considering the problem with the idea that the majority opinion should always trump minority opinion.

        At one time, a majority of people thought black people shouldn’t have the same rights as white people. Surely you would not consider that majority to be “right.” Would you?

        What if the majority decided Christians should be eradicated? Would you support the majority’s legislative mandate then?

        Majorities aren’t a good litmus test of what constitutes good policy.

      • You are right about “the majority.” Mob rule is not what I’m advocating. I am talking about affecting the majority opinion, however. So are you. You want more people to believe the way you do than not, correct?

        But theocracy? You already don’t think I’m the brightest bulb in the box, but do you think I’m that ignorant? Please!

  3. I know you’re not overtly advocating theocracy. I’m curious how you rationalize the political position of advocating Biblical beliefs as not being inherently theocratic.

    If they’re not theocratic, what are they? What role should a separation of religion and state play, if any at all?

    • When you keep using the word “theocratic,” you are implying at least one or two things. First, you are implying that a constitutional democracy can’t exist if any of it’s laws are founded on religious principles. If that is not what you are implying, then are you saying it can? If it can, then it’s not a theocracy.

      A theocracy is not a form of government which allows people the right to influence laws. The founding fathers did not want a theocracy, and neither do I. A theocracy is a form of government where a deity dictates all law, and where there is no debate or freedom to negotiate.

      Another thing you seem to imply is that the only valid laws are those uninfluenced by any worldview other than a humanist one. You imply that by supporting certain laws and positions that were biblically influenced, the supporting of those laws indicate a support for theocracy, or at least religiously-based oppression. But I would ask, how many fundamental laws on our books were not influenced by a biblical worldview? The very fact that our constitution supports the defending of our rights is based on the biblical presupposition that we are “endowed by our Creator.”

      Now, I’m sitting in a school waiting for the elementary kids to dismiss, then go to my bus. I don’t have a lot of time, so I’m gonna have to cut this short.

      But I do hope, Andrew, that you appreciate the fact that it is precisely because I believe God has given us a free will that sit here and calmly discuss these things with you. Unlike some kooks, I am not going to berate you or call you stupid. I do care about your soul. And since you choose to keep coming back to aggravate me, I’m gonna keep telling you that.

      • Anthony, I must say I do appreciate your concern. We disagree on some of the most fundamental aspects of life. But, I can plainly see that you’re a good man.

        I also want you to know that it is never my intent to aggravate you. I think discourse is healthy. If nothing else, you’ll be sharper in your own position as a result, right?

        Anyway, I intend to provide a substantive response toy out reply. However, it is Friday night and I am engaged in sustenance and libation fitting for the occasion.

        So until then, cheers my friend!

  4. Anthony, You are a remarkable man to remain so calm! One question for Andrew: Where do you find in the U.S. constitution the statement of separation of church and state? I signed the Manhattan Declaration, thank-you Anthony for bringing it to my attention. God bless! James

    • There isn’t one, Men.

      Obviously not every legal concept is explicitly stated. The ideas of judicial review and precedent would be non-existent If that were the case.

      So let’s have an honest conversation about jurisprudence instead of devolving the conversation to ridiculous talking points.

      To answer your question directly, the concept of the wall came from an interpretation of the First Amendment by Thomas Jefferson. I will let the Founding Father illustrate this point with his own words:

      “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

      Any further questions?

  5. Like…the 2nd Amendment?

    In context, they were only talking about muskets or muzzle loaders and could not have predicted “assault rifles” right?

  6. I’m fully aware of the context. It also in no way negates the idea.

    The context applies now more than ever.

  7. Anthony, I admit that I haven’t signed because I haven’t yet read the whole thing. I have to sit down and read through it to see if I would feel comfortable signing. I know of several who have, however.

  8. JW, I applaud you for remaining skeptical until you’ve reviewed this “declaration” for yourself.

    With that said, I am sure you’ll find the ancient bigotry, misplaced send of nationalism (completely incompatible with Jesus’ teachings, by the way), and and general unevolved thought processes right up your alley! May as well go ahead and sign 😉

    Oh wait…you don’t believe in icky evolution. Oh well, mankind will move on without your pathetic bronze-age conceptions regarding the origin of the world.

    (spoiler alert: you’re embarrassing me. you’re embarrassing me. your real skill is saying a LOT without saying anything at all! your logical gymnastics really paint your god in an awfully pathetic light. indeed, reading my Bible, I would certainly conclude the god of that book to be embarrassed by the ideas his creation employs in order to demonstrate his existence.)

    lol, thanks for the laughs.

  9. Believe me, I am well-entrenched in REAL issues. If you would like to discuss empirical evidence, I am ready and able.

    Yeah, this is your blog. It is also an outlet to the real world. You have to deal with rationalization when it rears its ugly, rational, head.

    I will be here each and every time there’s an attempt to undermine human progress. Which you do routinely. I’m not going away. Your readers deserve a balanced opinion. Especially one rooted in rationalism.

    So, you’ll have to engage in censorship to silence me. Or debate me like a man.

    Let’s see how it goes.

    (Either way, you’re still welcome for BBQ at my house any time ;))

  10. My friend, would you consider it a badge of honor to be censored? I am sure you would only use it to bolster your on agenda and say “See, told ya’!”

    The fact that I am/was in a bad mood has nothing to do with my relationship to God. You really amaze me, man. Having a hope that this life is not all there is somehow an offence to you. You would rather sit back and smile as we all rot away into nothingness that even contemplate something more? That is sad, but I can’t help you. You don’t want to believe any differently.

    The “real” issues I was speaking of have nothing to do with your assumptions, but they do have a lot to do with broken lives, broken homes, abused children, jailed moms, and a whole lot of tears. Because I am a pastor, these are the things I sometimes deal with. But hey, maybe I should just tell them to get a life, considering this is the only one they’ll ever have, right?

    Andrew, if you were to search the entire world wide web you would not find where I have searched out people with different beliefs and attacked them. I get on this blog and state my own beliefs. You don’t have to believe them.

    This blog was never meant to become a sounding board for antagonists. It was meant to be a place where I could share my thoughts about a life transformed by grace. You want it to be a combat zone.

    You talk about empirical evidence for God. You want me to “prove” God exists. You want me to do all that stuff, yet you definitely, without a doubt, cannot prove that God does NOT exist. Therefore, you ask of all of us what you cannot even do yourself. Do it, Andrew. Prove God doesn’t exist. Show me how you know you have looked at every possibility, every conceivable situation or circumstance, and have concluded that there is no God. Go ahead, tell me, without a doubt, that you know exactly how the universe came to be. The only thing you prove to me is that no matter what you see, because of your atheistic presuppositions, no amount of evidence will convince you. Even Isaac Asimov (Humanist Manifesto II) said, “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”

    Simply put, you have no faith.

    My head is killing me. I just got some more bad news which I don’t even know if you could even understand. Yet the only thing you want to do is sit there and push and push and push. Frankly, whether you want to admit it, or not, you act like a bully. I don’t search anyone out, yet you come here to offer your “balanced opinion” by calling berating and insulting “pathetic” people. You have a chip on your shoulder and think this is a good place to have fun showing it off.

    You try to make it seem that believers in God are idiots, yet two days ago I read where Wernher von Braun wrote in 1974…”One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all…The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all its harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based…” Before he died, he even picked out his headstone, and on it he had inscribed Psalm 19:1 (“The heavens are telling the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork”). Yep, he was “pathetic.” And he was definitely not a scientist.

    Again, I will never prove to you there is a God that loves you and sent His Son to die for you. I will never prove to you that there is more to life than what you see. I will never use the scientific method to reproduce love, hope, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, or mercy in a laboratory. And what’s more, I am not going to try. If I did, then there would be no need for faith. And frankly, as I see it, “without faith no man can please God.”

    There are plenty of smart people out there who have written books which are available to you. Even J.W. is a far sharper tack than I am. If you can argue with legitimately credentialed scientists and philosophers who believe in that “bronze age” religion, then who am I to do any better?

    “My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus’ blood and righteousness./ I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus’ name./ On Christ the Solid Rock I stand; all other ground is sinking sand.”

  11. “…yet you definitely, without a doubt, cannot prove that God does NOT exist.”

    Nope, I can’t do that.

    However, can you prove Zeus doesn’t exist? What about Allah, as Muslims know him?

    Can you prove rainbow-pooping unicorns don’t exist? Hmm.

    “Go ahead, tell me, without a doubt, that you know exactly how the universe came to be.”

    When have I ever made that claim? I don’t know how the universe came to be. We have some ideas but nothing has been demonstrated definitively. (The theories of the big band and evolution are subsequent ideas to whatever preceded them. I’ve read some interesting arguments regarding the possibility of a god or “prime mover” who could have initiated everything. I’m open to that idea. What we can conclude from that, however, is this mover is in no way indicative of the angry god in the bible. In other words, I’ve yet to see an argument that bridges the gap from the deistic “mover” god to, as Richard Dawkins put it: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

    ouch.

    “…because of your atheistic presuppositions, no amount of evidence will convince you.”

    Let’s start with ANY evidence first.

    “Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”

    The key words here are “strongly suspect.” Asimov has examined the evidence, or lack thereof, and concluded it is not worth wasting time to disprove god. See above for disproving other fantastical ideas.

    In reality, I am more agnostic than anything else. I don’t think the nature of god is unknowable.

    “You try to make it seem that believers in God are idiots…”

    When did I say that? I don’t think you’re an idiot. I am the only unbeliever in my family (to include my extended family). I don’t think they’re idiots either.

    Willfully ignoring facts…like science, for example, isn’t an indication of stupidity. It’s just an indication of willful ignorance. This is wrought by delusional adherence to ideas that don’t have any evidence. How else could that possibly be described? Case in point: the Monday Monkey episode that reference evolution. One of two things is true here (based on the content of the video)…you either haven’t the first idea about the theory of evolution in a principled scientific sense…or you just don’t care and want to perpetuate your own ideas instead.

    “Again, I will never prove to you there is a God that loves you and sent His Son to die for you.”

    Have you ever paused and looked at this idea from an objective standpoint? Seriously. Read it again. Let it roll around for a bit.

    God, in all of his infinite wisdom, cannot conceive a better plan to deal with the problem of sin than to manifest himself in human form, have himself tortured and murdered by other humans, and then come back to life. Seriously? So he had to circumvent his own plan of condemnation by sacrificing himself to himself? Okay…sorry if I find that a little bit insane.

    “If you can argue with legitimately credentialed scientists…”

    What scientists? I can think of one off hand who is a legitimate scientist who is also an evangelical: Franics Collins. He’s also an evolutionist. Interesting, no?

    You’re a pastor. People look up to you. I come back here because people deserve to hear an alternative viewpoint. I am sure most of your “flock” completely disregards everything I say. And that is perfectly fine!

    But, some, the freethinkers among them, may take notice. They may start thinking on their own. They may realize that life isn’t scary, that it’s beautiful because of the unlikely nature of our existence. That hope can and does exist…and not because a jealous supreme god demands you recognize his blood sacrifice, but because there is hope in mankind.

  12. Well, I find it ironic that you say Christians (of which I am one) who do what I am doing (“undermine human progress” by writing my own opinions in a freely accessed, but unforced blog) are the ones forcing their beliefs. To be more specific, you feel like I am forcing my beliefs on others (per former comments) by simply writing. Yet, you say, “I’m not going away,” and that you will keep coming back to let rationalism “rear its ugly…head.” Sounds a little hypocritical, if you ask me. Sounds like YOU are forcing YOUR beliefs on ME and my readers.

    And when you talk about hope, what hope? As the Apostle Paul said, “If in this life only we have hope of Christ [you don’t even have that], we are of all men most miserable.” – 1 Cor. 15:19 You don’t have any hope to offer the dying, other than that they will be dead. You admit you don’t really know that there is no God, so you can’t be sure what lies on the other side of this life. What kind of hope is telling someone, “Hope it all works out?”

    Hope? Your hope is in man. Your hope is in sinful, selfish, self-centered man. Your hope is in an animal with a little more smarts to become smarter. Your hope is that a murdering man will finally figure out, one day, that killing each other prematurely (which is a relative term) is not the best way to live, because living until we die and return to nothing is preferable.

    What is the hope you offer the victims. What hope is there that one day all things will be make right. Where is your hope that the scales will be balanced? You don’t offer that hope, only a hope that is good for the here and now. Your hope is baseless, for you have no foundation on which to base it. At least I have the Word of God. At least I have faith in a hope beyond this life. That reminds me of a well-known verse: Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Faith in Christ is the answer to all you are looking for, but you refuse it. Faith is the “hypostasis” (that which has foundation; a real substance; a substructure) of my hope. Faith is the “elegchos” (a proof, that by which a thing is tested) of what is not seen (what you consider UNREAL).

    I am spending too much time on this, for sure. There comes a time when one is doing nothing but arguing with the wind. My wife even told me to walk away from this. I might, before long. Your heart is so hard. If God Himself knocked on your door, you’d ask for an i.d., then you’d doubt it. There’s no winning with you. I’ve seen it on other blogs where you have commented. You are an atheist missionary, plain and simple, and you are using my blog to push your faith in humanism (your hope is in man).

    But in closing, and it will be the last time I comment on this (because I have already spent a couple of hours of time I can’t afford to waste), I am going to give you some names of people you say you’ve never heard of. Of course, simply because they are creationists, you will probably discredit them in one fell swoop. Whatever. But here are some names.

    Edgar H. Andrews, BSc, PhD, Dsc, FInstP, FIMMM, CEng, CPhys. (Emeritus Professor of Materials at the University of London and expert on the science of large molecules)

    James S. Allan, Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland

    Alexander Arndt. Professor of Analytical Chemistry of Heidelberg University, Germany; Former vice-president of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences Institute for Ecology Research.

    Wayne Frair, Ph.D. (in biochemical taxonomy from Rutgers, The State University, New Jersey).

    John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. and M.S. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA (1983, 1981); Technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    Henry Zuill. Ph.D. and M.A. in biology from Loma Linda University, California. Professor of Biology at Union Hills College in Lincoln, Nebraska.

    Leonid Korochkin. Professor of Genetics at Yale University; Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

    These guys are way, way smarter than me. They are credentialed. They are creationists. I am sure you could talk some sense into them. Give them a call.

    Remember, even if I do end up censoring you (I hope I don’t have to), I will still pray for you. Like C.S. Lewis, you may find yourself believing, no matter how much you fight it.

  13. So let me get this straight…

    Without Christ, there is no possibility of hope? How did that work for the people who preceded Jesus? Or the people who preceded the god of the Old Testament? We know, from science, that human have been around for about 100k – 250k years. Let’s call it 100k for this discussion.

    You believe that humanity was hopeless, suffered, died young, and life generally sucked…then BAM, 98k years later god decides that’ll be enough of that…time to intervene by sending my son! Okay.

    And of course I’m skeptical. You said I would ask for ID from God if he knocked on my door…as if the evidence of his existence is that obvious. It isn’t. You know it, and I do too.

    And thanks for the list of creationists. Does it seem odd to you that there are so few of them? The scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. These are outliers.

    I mean, seriously…there is either a massive global science conspiracy to undermine religious claims…or the research is solid!

    Do you really believe there’s a massive conspiracy for the theory of evolution? If not, why do you doubt the evidence and research?

    I mean that’s what really astounds me: I doubt the existence of god, for which there is no evidence to observe or review…and I have a “hard heart” and I am wrong. You doubt the theory of evolution for which there are mountains of peer-reviewed, well-vetted evidence…and you’re praised within your circles for such willful ignorance of fact.

    That is madness.

  14. [double entry edited by blog]

    And this one is good too…Dawkins and Oxford mathematician (and Christian) John Lennox. Certainly two intellectual titans. Enjoy!

  15. Watched. Dawkins thinks Jesus is petty. Dawkins says that we must explain the origin of God, but that it is unneccessary to explain who created the universe that created him. Darwin believes that “justice is a human construct,” and in response to those who desire ultimate justice, “too bad.” Darwin cannot respect a god whom he cannot comprehend. And ultimately, no matter how sophisticated, no matter how much a thing looks designed, only a fool would believe it is, unless, of course, random processes designed it (but then it wouldn’t be a “design,” for that implies a designer).

    Got it. And this is also the guy who told Ben Stein that a possible explanation for life on earth, because it is so complex and looks like it was the product of a designer, is that aliens seeded the earth with life. Aliens.

    “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom,”
    “but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength.” – 1 Corinthians 1:22-25

    I’m done, Andrew. You can’t help me.

    • With such an infantile understanding of scientific theory….you’re right, I can’t help you.

      (Even more breathtaking is the zeal with which you cleave to that ignorance.)

      I’ll interpret your silence that you do, indeed, believe in a global science conspiracy regarding the biological evolution of all species by natural selection.

      Wow, my face hurts.

      • I never mentioned the “conspiracy.” But man, your sure get on my patient nerves with your “infantile” remarks. Is it any wonder my responses to you are going to fade away. Before long, I am not going to give it my time. If condescension is going to be your trademark, I’d rather talk with someone who shows more respect.

  16. What do you want me to call it, man? You make sweeping generalization and pass judgement on a subject you very clearly know little or nothing about.

    Would you be so kind as to answer the question about the “conspiracy?” If it isn’t a conspiracy, why is there so much (overwhelming) consensus in the scientific community? Surely they can’t all be wrong…right?

  17. Ah yes, the wisdom of god: create man, get pissed when he does what you design him to do (sin). Kick this creation out of paradise and levy against them all sorts of pain and suffering (c’mon man! it was one apple!).

    Let the Earth populate through apparent incest. Get pissed again when they sin again. Drown most of them. Feel bad about the drowning…square up with mankind by showing them a rainbow…

    Let’s not even go down the road of the issues with science. Like, you know, god’s apparent affinity for beetles, the fact that the Earth couldn’t have been created before the Sun, the firmament (a solid roof over the world? I’d like to talk about the Apollo astronauts about that one…)

    So, forgive me if I don’t buy this wisdom. It’s isn’t wisdom just because it calls itself wisdom.

    Make sure you pray for me too! I will think for you…

    • Ken Livingston

      Andrew, when did you stop believing there is a God? Just because you say there isn’t doesnt make it so. Believe or not believe, that is your choice. In the end we all will have to live with the consequences of our own choices.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.