Pro-Christian Legislation vs. Anti-Christian Legislation

[Fregretu]

I have read posts by many people on this forum about how Christianity imposes itself on others through legislation. "What legislation?" the Christians ask. Well, here you go:

#1. Of course! Proposition 8 in California, and the many, many other such campaigns and laws across the country which haven't yet been overturned (unlike Iowa, surprisingly). This type of legislation is overwhelmingly proposed and supported by religious organizations and voters. They try to say that its a moral issue, but non-believers don't care about homosexuals or the sanctity or definition of non-Christian, non-religious based ideas. And yet, no matter how many times you tell Christians that they won't have to get married to the same-sex, or that the government won't force churches to marry same-sex couples, they won't believe you.

#2. The Personhood bills which are a newly and thinly disguised abortion ban campaign. The constant threat to a woman's right to choose seems an endless battle. And no matter how many times you tell Christians that they can choose not to get abortions, they still try to make abortions illegal. There is always a new threat to Roe v. Wade, for some reason, I dont' know why.

#3. Euthanasia. Its only legal in Washington and Oregon, and only recently. If this was a moral issue, there would be no opposition, but, unfortunately for all those dying in agony and with little quality of life despite their wishes to pass on, its a religious issue. God doesn't forgive suicide even if it is humane.

#4. Here's something for you Christmas Warriors out there: GovTrack: H. Res. 847 [110th]: Text of Legislation, Engrossed in House. Its innocuously worded, but the implications are far-reaching. Basically this bill extends governmental protection to Christmas and Christians against that awful, insidious enemy of true-believers everywhere: "bigotry"

Well, perhpas I should've entitled the thread "Christian-values based legislation versus Secular Legislation".

I would say you're right. Those laws aren't Pro-Christian. Now making Church's tax exempt could be considered Pro-Christian, but then taxing them gives the government control over churches, so that isn't good either.

Anyway, I agree with what you're saying above. The point of my OP was that there are Christian beliefs which are legislated or could-be legislated, for no other reason than that the bill was proposed by Christians and the majority of voters are Christian. This is a violation of separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state does not mean separation of God from state. American history proves your interpretation wrong. You are not the first person to sodomize the original intent of the first amendment.

CMM, I do hope that one day you will have an epiphany. But until then, I have to argue that your OP is wrong. The laws you list are not solely Christian beliefs:

#1. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism oppose homosexuality

#2. Abortion ban campaign: Christianity, Judaism (Sort of), Islam, Buddhism (one exception, to save the life of the mother), Hinduism, Sikhism are a few religions that are pro-life.

#3. Euthanasia. Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism oppose this.

#4. Res. 847. Hallelujah, there is a God. But since this nation has never been based on atheist beliefs, how will this resolution change your lifestyle?

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry ... but you think that those are the only religions in the US? If so then you miss a lot. Also, separation of church and state was meant to protect your rights to worship how you want just as much as everyone else, if you don't like it then don't whine when they make more laws about your churches and such.

 

[3mmartin]

All:
One cannot open his mouth without stating what he believes is true. We may have many different reasons for believing various things. IT is not the role of government to disallow any legislation proposal because of its source.
Secularists seem to be saying" I'm sorry, that idea has its' origin in religion so it is not allowed due to separation of church and state'

Just state your case, and fight the battle in the court of public opinion, and stop whining about the "origin" of ideas.

BTW "The separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution. It is a Liberal judges interpretation of the 1st Amendment. ALL of the Amendments are Restrictions on the actions of the federal government, not restrictions on the actions of the people.:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" is found in Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was answering the Baptists concerns that the Federal government was going to establish an official US Christian denomination, and assured them that this was not the case.

All of the Founding Fathers Prayed in Congress. Thomas Jefferson even used federal funds to finance evangelistic missions to the Indians. Read your history people....

Liberals who claim that the constitution forbids school prayer and other such things are just liars or ignorant, it is that simple.

 

[Fregretu]

Sorry ... but you think that those are the only religions in the US? If so then you miss a lot. Also, separation of church and state was meant to protect your rights to worship how you want just as much as everyone else, if you don't like it then don't whine when they make more laws about your churches and such.

Not sure I understand your post. Where you talking to me? If that is the case, you didn't read my post.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry ... but you think that those are the only religions in the US? If so then you miss a lot. Also, separation of church and state was meant to protect your rights to worship how you want just as much as everyone else, if you don't like it then don't whine when they make more laws about your churches and such.

Not sure I understand your post. Where you talking to me? If that is the case, you didn't read my post.

Yes, and I did read it. It makes my point no less valid, nor takes the impact of it away. If you don't want separation of church and state then don't whine when laws are made to impact your churches.

Recent Example: Guns banned in churches.

Possible Next Steps: Taxes on tithing.

... and it will continue. The reasons they can't make laws for many others is because we stay out of the lime light, instead of using terms like "god says this ..." or "this is morally wrong because it says in ....", we just put the proposals up, no religious wording, just the law, and let the votes stand. The end result is that the government doesn't pay us as much attention. Pagans mostly, we are just too quiet in the government (mostly) and don't put our religion on the table in politics or policy. The benefit is huge, first no one realizes which laws we influenced, secondly the government forgets we even exist.

I know some are crying for complete abandonment of organized religion, but they are not the majority of non-christians, just as the majority of christians are not hateful or angry. It's just sometimes, as we learned from history, it's better to back out and restate things without any beliefs in them. Otherwise you can only expect the government to notice you. This is probably one reason the practicing Jews are not ranting about some laws influencing them, they stuck their nose in it and expected to get a little dirty.

 

[Fregretu]

Sorry ... but you think that those are the only religions in the US? If so then you miss a lot. Also, separation of church and state was meant to protect your rights to worship how you want just as much as everyone else, if you don't like it then don't whine when they make more laws about your churches and such.

Not sure I understand your post. Where you talking to me? If that is the case, you didn't read my post.

Yes, and I did read it. It makes my point no less valid, nor takes the impact of it away. If you don't want separation of church and state then don't whine when laws are made to impact your churches.

Recent Example: Guns banned in churches.

Possible Next Steps: Taxes on tithing.

... and it will continue. The reasons they can't make laws for many others is because we stay out of the lime light, instead of using terms like "god says this ..." or "this is morally wrong because it says in ....", we just put the proposals up, no religious wording, just the law, and let the votes stand. The end result is that the government doesn't pay us as much attention. Pagans mostly, we are just too quiet in the government (mostly) and don't put our religion on the table in politics or policy. The benefit is huge, first no one realizes which laws we influenced, secondly the government forgets we even exist.

I know some are crying for complete abandonment of organized religion, but they are not the majority of non-christians, just as the majority of christians are not hateful or angry. It's just sometimes, as we learned from history, it's better to back out and restate things without any beliefs in them. Otherwise you can only expect the government to notice you. This is probably one reason the practicing Jews are not ranting about some laws influencing them, they stuck their nose in it and expected to get a little dirty.

I defend the first amendment. I don't defend the misinterpretation of it. Please explain to me why you think I am against separation of church and state.

 

[3mmartin]

Not sure I understand your post. Where you talking to me? If that is the case, you didn't read my post.

Yes, and I did read it. It makes my point no less valid, nor takes the impact of it away. If you don't want separation of church and state then don't whine when laws are made to impact your churches.

Recent Example: Guns banned in churches.

Possible Next Steps: Taxes on tithing.

... and it will continue. The reasons they can't make laws for many others is because we stay out of the lime light, instead of using terms like "god says this ..." or "this is morally wrong because it says in ....", we just put the proposals up, no religious wording, just the law, and let the votes stand. The end result is that the government doesn't pay us as much attention. Pagans mostly, we are just too quiet in the government (mostly) and don't put our religion on the table in politics or policy. The benefit is huge, first no one realizes which laws we influenced, secondly the government forgets we even exist.

I know some are crying for complete abandonment of organized religion, but they are not the majority of non-christians, just as the majority of christians are not hateful or angry. It's just sometimes, as we learned from history, it's better to back out and restate things without any beliefs in them. Otherwise you can only expect the government to notice you. This is probably one reason the practicing Jews are not ranting about some laws influencing them, they stuck their nose in it and expected to get a little dirty.

I defend the first amendment. I don't defend the misinterpretation of it. Please explain to me why you think I am against separation of church and state.

I'm sure you are for "The separation of church and state" Good for you, but the Phrase "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That Phrase was written by a liberal judge, and turns the 1st Amendment upside down to mean the opposite of original intent. The founding Father were not against prayer in school, they invented it. Read my post above.

 

[KittenKoder]

Not sure I understand your post. Where you talking to me? If that is the case, you didn't read my post.

Yes, and I did read it. It makes my point no less valid, nor takes the impact of it away. If you don't want separation of church and state then don't whine when laws are made to impact your churches.

Recent Example: Guns banned in churches.

Possible Next Steps: Taxes on tithing.

... and it will continue. The reasons they can't make laws for many others is because we stay out of the lime light, instead of using terms like "god says this ..." or "this is morally wrong because it says in ....", we just put the proposals up, no religious wording, just the law, and let the votes stand. The end result is that the government doesn't pay us as much attention. Pagans mostly, we are just too quiet in the government (mostly) and don't put our religion on the table in politics or policy. The benefit is huge, first no one realizes which laws we influenced, secondly the government forgets we even exist.

I know some are crying for complete abandonment of organized religion, but they are not the majority of non-christians, just as the majority of christians are not hateful or angry. It's just sometimes, as we learned from history, it's better to back out and restate things without any beliefs in them. Otherwise you can only expect the government to notice you. This is probably one reason the practicing Jews are not ranting about some laws influencing them, they stuck their nose in it and expected to get a little dirty.

I defend the first amendment. I don't defend the misinterpretation of it. Please explain to me why you think I am against separation of church and state.

I didn't know exactly if you were or not, since you hadn't said specifically one way or the other. I was just making a point about how it would benefit both, in case you didn't, meant no disrespect nor did I want to assume either way.

 

[Fregretu]

Yes, and I did read it. It makes my point no less valid, nor takes the impact of it away. If you don't want separation of church and state then don't whine when laws are made to impact your churches.

Recent Example: Guns banned in churches.

Possible Next Steps: Taxes on tithing.

... and it will continue. The reasons they can't make laws for many others is because we stay out of the lime light, instead of using terms like "god says this ..." or "this is morally wrong because it says in ....", we just put the proposals up, no religious wording, just the law, and let the votes stand. The end result is that the government doesn't pay us as much attention. Pagans mostly, we are just too quiet in the government (mostly) and don't put our religion on the table in politics or policy. The benefit is huge, first no one realizes which laws we influenced, secondly the government forgets we even exist.

I know some are crying for complete abandonment of organized religion, but they are not the majority of non-christians, just as the majority of christians are not hateful or angry. It's just sometimes, as we learned from history, it's better to back out and restate things without any beliefs in them. Otherwise you can only expect the government to notice you. This is probably one reason the practicing Jews are not ranting about some laws influencing them, they stuck their nose in it and expected to get a little dirty.

I defend the first amendment. I don't defend the misinterpretation of it. Please explain to me why you think I am against separation of church and state.

I'm sure you are for "The separation of church and state" Good for you, but the Phrase "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That Phrase was written by a liberal judge, and turns the 1st Amendment upside down to mean the opposite of original intent. The founding Father were not against prayer in school, they invented it. Read my post above.

I totally agree with you. When I made reference to the original meaning of the first amendment being sodomized, I was referring to the liberal judges.

 

[3mmartin]

Make me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber. But daily frame me more and more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life. Bless my family, friends & kindred unite us all in praising & glorifying thee in all our works begun, continued, and ended, when we shall come to make our last account before thee blessed Saviour, who hath taught us thus to pray, our Father.

George Washingtons Prayer Journal

No "Deist" wrote that..

 

[3mmartin]

Despite a recent decline, Christians (or people who define themselves as Christians) make up 77% of the population of the United States!

There are many, very powerful Christian organizations that wield millions of votes, millions of dollars of potential campaign donations, and extremly poweful lobbies in DC. Are you curious as to how many? Google it. You'll be suprised! And many of these organizations' goals are to infiltrate public office and make our secular government a Christian theocracy. Just check out some their websites like:

I did several searches for powerful atheist, agnostic, or other anti-religious political organizations and guess how many I discovered? None. Oh, there were many little organizations, but they weren't lobbies or political or powerful unlink the Christian organizations described above.

So, why then do Christians so frequently play the victim? Is it because of anti-Christian legislation?

The only legislation I could find that could be inferred as anti-Christian was hate crime and hate speech laws. Apparently, if such legislation passes, if a pastor preaches against homosexuality and one of his flock goes out and assaults a homosexual or a transgender person, that pastor can be charged with hate speech. Well, at least, that's what the Christians claim who oppose the legislation. How legitimate that claim is I haven't been able to verify, but it smacks of the unfoundedness of the Christian belief that the government will force churches to marry homosexuals if we allow same-sex marriages.

I thought, "Well, why don't these non-Christian elements try to outlaw Christianity?" Then it occurred to me: because they support freedom of religion. Now, why is that? Because they are the minority in this country. If they didn't support freedom of religion, the Christians who are by far the majority would outlaw those of differing or no religious beliefs! Of course! That's why Christians fled to the New World in the 16th and 17th Centuries.

So, then I thought, "Maybe there is historic precedence for anti-Christian legislation." I researched that branch of thinking and.... Nope. In fact, I found lots of laws that were based on Christian belief i.e. anti-sodomy laws, can't work on Sundays, etc. etc. Many of these laws have been overturned and others are no longer enforced except to push political agenda. Some of those laws are discussed here:

I have read posts by many people on this forum about how Christianity imposes itself on others through legislation. "What legislation?" the Christians ask. Well, here you go:

#1. Of course! Proposition 8 in California, and the many, many other such campaigns and laws across the country which haven't yet been overturned (unlike Iowa, surprisingly). This type of legislation is overwhelmingly proposed and supported by religious organizations and voters. They try to say that its a moral issue, but non-believers don't care about homosexuals or the sanctity or definition of non-Christian, non-religious based ideas. And yet, no matter how many times you tell Christians that they won't have to get married to the same-sex, or that the government won't force churches to marry same-sex couples, they won't believe you.

#2. The Personhood bills which are a newly and thinly disguised abortion ban campaign. The constant threat to a woman's right to choose seems an endless battle. And no matter how many times you tell Christians that they can choose not to get abortions, they still try to make abortions illegal. There is always a new threat to Roe v. Wade, for some reason, I dont' know why.

#3. Euthanasia. Its only legal in Washington and Oregon, and only recently. If this was a moral issue, there would be no opposition, but, unfortunately for all those dying in agony and with little quality of life despite their wishes to pass on, its a religious issue. God doesn't forgive suicide even if it is humane.

#4. Here's something for you Christmas Warriors out there: Its innocuously worded, but the implications are far-reaching. Basically this bill extends governmental protection to Christmas and Christians against that awful, insidious enemy of true-believers everywhere: "bigotry"

So, what aren't Christians allowed to do: Teach creationism and intelligent design in public schools, lead children in prayer in public schools, publicly expound their hatred of those who are different from them, and... what else? Is that it? If you can think of more, please, post them in response.

Okay, what are non-believers not allowed to do because Christians don't like it: get married if they're gay (whether they are Christian or not), possibly lose you're right to choose if you're a woman, you can't choose to die if you're terminally ill and suffering, and, you have to allow Christmas to be celebrated and not be bigotted toward Christians if you live in Iowa (which are really big threats to Christianity).

And this is just the legislation-ways that Christianity dominates this nation. There is also the constant threat that Christians will overrun government and that this nation will become a theocracy despite separation of church and state. Obviously many Christian groups (extremists no doubt) believe that this country was founded on Christian principles and should be a Christian-governed nation, despite the Constitution and the history of the fates of theocracies: revolution and collapse.

Now, I might've missed somethings in this OP. If anyone else knows of any other legislation, either Pro-Christian or anti-Christian, please share.

And just remember: spiritual belief is a private matter, not a public one. You have your relationship with God, but don't make me tell you to "Get a room!"

All:
One cannot open his mouth without stating what he believes is true. We may have many different reasons for believing various things. IT is not the role of government to disallow any legislation proposal because of its source.
Secularists seem to be saying" I'm sorry, that idea has its' origin in religion so it is not allowed due to separation of church and state'

Just state your case, and fight the battle in the court of public opinion, and stop whining about the "origin" of ideas.

BTW "The separation of church and state" is NOT in the Constitution. It is a Liberal judges interpretation of the 1st Amendment. ALL of the Amendments are Restrictions on the actions of the federal government, not restrictions on the actions of the people.:

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" is found in Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists. He was answering the Baptists concerns that the Federal government was going to establish an official US Christian denomination, and assured them that this was not the case.

All of the Founding Fathers Prayed in Congress. Thomas Jefferson even used federal funds to finance evangelistic missions to the Indians. Read your history people....

Liberals who claim that the constitution forbids school prayer and other such things are just liars or uninformed, it is that simple.

 

[KittenKoder]

I defend the first amendment. I don't defend the misinterpretation of it. Please explain to me why you think I am against separation of church and state.

I'm sure you are for "The separation of church and state" Good for you, but the Phrase "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That Phrase was written by a liberal judge, and turns the 1st Amendment upside down to mean the opposite of original intent. The founding Father were not against prayer in school, they invented it. Read my post above.

I totally agree with you. When I made reference to the original meaning of the first amendment being sodomized, I was referring to the liberal judges.

Then in that light, I beg of you, don't judge us by our current members in power, they are idiots ... LOL

 

[Fregretu]

I'm sure you are for "The separation of church and state" Good for you, but the Phrase "Separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. That Phrase was written by a liberal judge, and turns the 1st Amendment upside down to mean the opposite of original intent. The founding Father were not against prayer in school, they invented it. Read my post above.

I totally agree with you. When I made reference to the original meaning of the first amendment being sodomized, I was referring to the liberal judges.

Then in that light, I beg of you, don't judge us by our current members in power, they are idiots ... LOL

We do agree on that.

 

[Evangelical]

Look are Gays serious about marriage? Because if Gays can marry, then Mormons can marry multiple wives (how can you possibly justify discrimination against polygamists but not against gays)?

If that is allowed, the Mormon faith will explode population wise, as the Arabs' has, (they also practice polygamy and their population doubles about every 12 years).

In 36 years that'd e 24 million Mormons, enough to trounce on any gay's rights.

 

[Father Time]

Thomas Jefferson wrote the following

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind"

Forcing people to spend money to print 'In God we Trust' on our currency or pay teachers to lead prayers qualifies don't you think?

The actual wording of separation of church in state isn't in the Constitution but it's covered by the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

It doesn't say anything about Christianity (in fact there's no mention of Christianity or God anywhere in the Constitution) it says religion.

 

[Evangelical]

Thomas Jefferson wrote the following

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind"

Forcing people to spend money to print 'In God we Trust' on our currency or pay teachers to lead prayers qualifies don't you think?

The actual wording of separation of church in state isn't in the Constitution but it's covered by the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

It doesn't say anything about Christianity (in fact there's no mention of Christianity or God anywhere in the Constitution) it says religion.

Conversely forcing tax payers to pay for gay marriages and abortions is wrong. Since gay marriages gives gays tax benefits the tax payer is subsidizing their marriage (as other marriages). This means that Thomas Jefferson would object to gay marriage on grounds that the majority has a right not to pay for it if they find it morally reprehensible.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thomas Jefferson wrote the following

"That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind"

Forcing people to spend money to print 'In God we Trust' on our currency or pay teachers to lead prayers qualifies don't you think?

The actual wording of separation of church in state isn't in the Constitution but it's covered by the establishment clause.

"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion"

It doesn't say anything about Christianity (in fact there's no mention of Christianity or God anywhere in the Constitution) it says religion.

Conversely forcing tax payers to pay for gay marriages and abortions is wrong. Since gay marriages gives gays tax benefits the tax payer is subsidizing their marriage (as other marriages). This means that Thomas Jefferson would object to gay marriage on grounds that the majority has a right not to pay for it if they find it morally reprehensible.

First, what do taxpayers pay people who are married? If people are getting my money for being married then the whole thing needs to go, period.

Secondly, how do taxpayers pay for clinically safe abortions?

As for your Mormon analogy, it fails. I usually don't bother responding to this but meh, I'm bored. There are two reasons why it's a fail. One, Mormons stopped that practice more than 30 years ago. Second, it would offer them too much tax benefits and has the potential to over complicate the legal issues of marriage, thus actually costing taxpayers money and bog down the court system. Most Mormons do not want that again themselves because of the legal portions of the contract and would never participate even if it was allowed again.

Now, christians do not control marriage, it's not just your ritual and since there is legislation involved you control it only in the same manner that all have a right to vote on it. If you want it to yourself then sever all laws protecting married couples. It's not anti-anything to allow gays to marry.

As a matter of fact I fail to see any anti-religion laws being pushed or enforced anywhere.

 

[Evangelical]

Two persons make $50k a year, individually $100k is taxed per year.

A married couple makes $100k per year jointly, only $90k is taxed, due to deductions.

It's not necessarily those figures, but you get the idea. You obviously don't have a very complex understanding of how government works. I suggest you just not vote next time around.

Referring to Mormons, Gay marriage would complicate the legal issues and give out too many benefits so that's a good enough secular reason not to allow it.

 

[Father Time]

The only thing I can think of for abortion is this

Obama Lifts Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

 

[KittenKoder]

Two persons make $50k a year, individually $100k is taxed per year.

A married couple makes $100k per year jointly, only $90k is taxed, due to deductions.

It's not necessarily those figures, but you get the idea. You obviously don't have a very complex understanding of how government works. I suggest you just not vote next time around.

Referring to Mormons, Gay marriage would complicate the legal issues and give out too many benefits so that's a good enough secular reason not to allow it.

No, it would also cut their federal retirement (Social Security) to make up for it, so no, we don't pay for that. However we could just take that benefit out completely to make it fair if that's your only legal reasoning, which would make a lot of single tax payers really happy. You seem incapable of considering the other side so I will just leave it at that.