Category archives: Religious Liberty

Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act Becomes Law

by Family Research Council

December 19, 2016

This past Friday, President Obama signed into law H.R. 1150, the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act. (Congress had passed H.R. 1150 just a few days before on December 13th) The law was introduced by Congressman Chris Smith, a well-known defender of human rights, and named in honor of longtime religious freedom champion, retired Congressman Frank Wolf.

Everyone who helped this bill become law should be commended. It will strengthen ways for religious freedom to be better supported and protected around the world, and highlights the critical role religious freedom should play in U.S. foreign policy.

The passage of this law is a nice Christmas gift. We now hope it is acted upon and fully implemented.

Buzzfeed to Christians: No Freedom for You!

by Travis Weber

November 30, 2016

Much ink has been spilled over the assertion that the activist wing of the LGBT movement does not want to infringe on religious freedom, but only wants protections for itself.

Anyone who still seriously thinks this is true needs to wake up and look around.

The latest alleged outrage disproving this theory is a Buzzfeed “news” story titled: “Chip And Joanna Gaines’ Church Is Firmly Against Same-Sex Marriage.” The entire article is devoted to talking about how the well-liked and successful couple of the HGTV show Fixer Upper attend a Christian church that holds to the biblical view of marriage. The article then reviews the pastor’s comments reflecting this belief. If you’re waiting for more, you’ll be disappointed. That’s it. That’s the entire article.

Why this is a news story is unclear; there is nothing new or noteworthy in it. The church even told the reporter it has held the same views on marriage for 17 years. Where was Buzzfeed before when that “news” broke?

The entire point of this story appears to be to generate controversy and direct hostility toward the Gaines family. Thankfully, many Buzzfeed readers are quite dissatisfied with this approach, the top comment stating:

This is the dumbest story I have ever heard. It’s like a witch hunt for their beliefs, to try [to] stir the oil from a pot into the flames of the stove. This kind of article is exactly what is wrong with the media. Don’t go reaching out for a reason to hate people. The Gaines seem to be a wonderful couple and unless they are hurting anyone why does it matter. Also their beliefs are their own just like every other person. Don’t touch and don’t spew hate, this article is asking for hate to be spewed.”

Exactly. This is why most Americans can’t stand the intolerance of the modern progressive media and their allies in the activist wing of the LGBT movement. Most Americans want to be left alone to live in peace, and believe it’s ok for people to have different views. That’s the whole point of America. Not so for modern progressives. They have to force you to believe as they do.

This should be a lesson for Christians who think they can ignore the society around them. The Gaines have done nothing here—nothing except attend an orthodox Christian church and do their job well enough to draw the attention of busybody “news” sources. Christians who think radical progressive activists and their allies in the LGBT movement will not bother them are mistaken. At this time, those trying to live out their Christian faith in the marketplace and government are under scrutiny. But when the activists are done with them they will turn their attention to the churches. After all, that’s what happened here. Would there be a “story” if the Gaines’ church caved to pressure and abandoned its biblical position on marriage?

Countless Christians across our land wake up every day and do exactly what the Gaines have done here—work hard at their job and participate in the life of their local church. Most just haven’t been famous enough to be noticed. However, they won’t be able to live in peace forever.

Those who hear about religious freedom and think it’s still an issue for everyone else to deal with must grapple with what is happening to the Gaines’s. They won’t be able to avoid it forever.

Marine Corps: Spiritual Fitness Is a Necessary Component of Effective Military Service

by Travis Weber

November 22, 2016

Recently, the Marine Corps announced it is planning to develop a program of “spiritual fitness training” in order to “build the kind of mental resilience necessary for war,” according to chaplain Rear Admiral Brent Scott.

This is a welcome development, and it is good to see the military formally recognize a very basic truth about the human person: we are more than just a collection of muscle, bones, and tissue.

After a long time in the Middle East, Scott said he “found that much of the resilience we saw was not necessarily attributed to something that somebody could do in the gym. A lot had to do with the heart and soul of the individual.” Training is needed to develop this spiritual component of our humanity as it relates to military service. It will be a success, Scott notes, “if Marines begin talking about spiritual fitness and maintaining spiritual health as openly as they discuss physical fitness and physical training.”

A moral compass doesn’t just come from a faith foundation; it’s not enough to make a decision based on what is legally right or wrong,” Scott said. “Chaplains will help Marines discover that compass for themselves—that center of gravity that comes from their own upbringing, personal experiences, and religious teaching.” 

The message on the subject from the Commandant of the Marine Corps states as follows:

  1. Fitness is a vital part of being a United States Marine. Although we all understand the importance of being physically fit, it is also important to remember the other three aspects of overall fitness: spiritual, mental, and social. All of these aspects are essential to the well-being of each individual Marine and Sailor, and our Corps as a whole.
  2. As Americas force in readiness, we must be prepared to answer our Nation’s call on a moment’s notice. A large part of that ability is our capacity for resilience. Regardless of the battle we just fought, we must be ready for our next success. Research indicates that spiritual fitness plays a key role in resiliency, in our ability to grow, develop, recover, heal, and adapt. Regardless of individual philosophy or beliefs, spiritual well-being makes us better warriors and people of character capable of making good choices on and off duty.
  3. Beginning in October, the Marine Corps will be emphasizing all components of fitness, particularly the physical and spiritual aspects. During this time, I ask each of you to reflect on what you and the Marines and Sailors you lead are doing to achieve and maintain an optimal level of strength and resilience. Your leaders and chaplains at all levels stand ready to engage with you in this task. By attending to spiritual fitness with the same rigor given to physical, social and mental fitness, Marines and Sailors can become and remain the honorable warriors and model citizens our Nation expects.

Exactly right. This observation of the importance of spiritual fitness for our service members follows a long tradition of recognizing the importance of faith in our military. Early in our country’s history, George Washington recognized the need for chaplains in the military (and also that they be of a variety of faiths). Today, former Army Ranger Jeff Struecker describes how his spiritual strength helped him through the intense and traumatic moments of the Battle of Mogadishu, Somalia: “I had a very strong Christian faith before joining the Army. It gave me this overwhelming sense of peace when most people were around me panicking. The next day, many people were asking me how I kept it together. God was leading me. I became an Army chaplain. It was directly a result of the day after this battle in Mogadishu.”

In addition, spirituality is a crucial component of medicine and wellness,[1] and can’t be separated from the healing process which our veterans and service members undergo after returning from war.

As we continue to face instances of religion being scrubbed from the military, whether through the removal of Bibles from public displays in military facilities, or the censorship of religious references by commanders, the Marine Corps’ action reminds us of the potentially detrimental effects of the elimination of the spiritual aspect of military service.

It is undeniable that the spiritual component of our human nature plays an important role in the business of warfare. It must be addressed, and we neglect it at our own peril. For these reasons and more, the Marine Corps’ announcement recognizing its importance is welcome indeed.



[1] See David A. Lichter (D. Min.), “Studies Show Spiritual Care Linked to Better Health Outcomes,” Literature Review, Catholic Health Ass’n of the United States (March-April 2013); and, for example, Christina M. Puchalski (M.D.), “The Role of Spirituality in Health Care,” Proc (Baylor Univ Med Cent), 2001 Oct; 14(4): 352-7; Christina M. Puchalski (M.D.), “Improving the Spiritual Dimension of Whole Person Care: Reaching National and International Consensus,” J Palliat Med, 2014 June 1; 17(6): 642-656 (doi: 10.1089/jpm.2014.9427). Puchalski (2001), n.2, observes: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations has a policy that states: “For many patients, pastoral care and other spiritual services are an integral part of health care and daily life. The hospital is able to provide for pastoral care and other spiritual services for patients who request them” (26).

Corporations Can Push Back Against Anti-Religious Freedom Activists

by Travis Weber

November 18, 2016

One important bit of recent religious liberty news which hasn’t gotten much attention is the pushback by Proctor & Gamble shareholders against anti-religious freedom activists seeking to eliminate corporate neutrality and enlist large firms in their culture war exploits. This is a promising development, and shows that large corporations abandoning their neutrality and enlisting in the battle against religious freedom is not inevitable.

When it was recently proposed that the “company should join Apple, PayPal, Disney, and others in the political fight against religious freedom laws in Mississippi and Tennessee and should take a stand against North Carolina’s transgender restroom policy,” 94% of shareholders rejected the idea. Such a rejection shows there is sanity in the corporate world, after all.

In recent years, large corporations have almost universally abandoned their cultural neutrality and sided against religious freedom laws at the state level, many times issuing threats to pull out of the state or not expand if such laws are not eliminated. State officials often capitulate, believing resistance is futile.

This development within Proctor & Gamble shows that the struggle is not in vain, however, and all citizens and government officials alike should take heart and understand that this is a fight worth having.

State-Sanctioned Discrimination in Georgia

by Mandi Ancalle

November 4, 2016

A new type of discrimination seems to be at play in Georgia, and it appears to be sanctioned by the state. Two African-American Christian men have been fired from their roles serving the state and its municipalities for holding religious views about human sexuality. People with sincere religious views are now being marginalized in Georgia, where just last year, Governor Nathan Deal vetoed a religious liberty bill saying, “I find it ironic that today some in the religious community feel it necessary to ask the government to confer upon them certain rights and protections.”

What is ironic is the fact that Governor Deal could “find no examples” of discrimination based on religion in Georgia, despite the existence of the ongoing case of Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. Chief Cochran was removed from the Atlanta Fire Department for expressing his religious views about marriage in a devotional book he wrote on his own time. A non-profit litigation firm is litigating his discrimination case against the City of Atlanta.

It is also ironic that Governor Deal quipped, “If indeed our religious liberty is conferred by God and not by man-made government, we should heed the ‘hands-off’ admonition of the First Amendment to our Constitution.” Indeed, Georgia should follow the hands-off admonition of the First Amendment, rather than discriminating against people simply for exercising their religion and terminating those individuals’ public service.

In fact, mere months after Governor Deal made that statement, the state of Georgia fired yet another public servant because of his religious views. Dr. Eric Walsh was fired from the Georgia Department of Public Health for statements he made during sermons he delivered at his church. His sermons, delivered over a period of years prior to his being hired, included his religious beliefs and viewpoints on social and cultural issues such as health, music, marriage, sexuality, world religions, science, politics, and other matters of concern. Dr. Walsh and Georgia’s other public servants are in need of explicit statutory protections that ensure their First Amendment rights will be respected by the state.

The legislature can easily address the concerns of Dr. Walsh, Fire Chief Cochran, and Georgians across the state, particularly as it relates to their religious views about human sexuality by passing the Government Non-Discrimination Act. The Government Non-Discrimination Act is a simple bill that would ensure that the state respects Georgia’s first freedom, the freedom of religion.

Specifically, the Government Non-Discrimination Act says, “the State shall not take any discriminatory action against a person, wholly or partially on the basis that such person believes, speaks, or acts  in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; or (3) male (man) and female (woman) refer to distinct and immutable biological sexes that are determinable by anatomy and genetics by time of birth.” The Government Non-Discrimination Act goes on to define types of “discriminatory action,” which includes withholding and terminating employment, the type of discrimination Dr. Walsh and Fire Chief Cochran have experienced.

By passing the Government Non-Discrimination Act and sending it to Governor Deal’s desk, the legislature has the opportunity to reassure Georgians that religious freedom is of the utmost importance in the Peach State. And, as people relocate to the cities and countryside of Georgia to work for the state, they can rest assured that they will not be oppressed because of their religious beliefs.

Georgia Still Needs to Remedy the Wrong Done to Eric Walsh

by Travis Weber

November 1, 2016

Last week, Family Research Council and others publicly called for the state of Georgia to back down from its intrusive request that Dr. Eric Walsh turn over his sermons and other religious materials to the state as part of an ongoing lawsuit.

After a public outcry, the state attorney general’s office withdrew its request for sermons. However, the AG is still demanding that Dr. Walsh turn over a number of things which should be off-limits, including:

  1. A validation of Dr. Walsh’s credentials as a minister
  2. Proof that Dr. Walsh has served as a minister with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination
  3. All contracts Dr. Walsh has, or has ever had, with the Seventh-day Adventist Church
  4. A report to the State of Georgia on how—and how much—he has been compensated for producing and delivering his sermons

Such intrusive government overreach is completely unacceptable. Our freedoms don’t permit the state to assess a minister’s credentials. The government may not inquire into discussions and agreements between a religious denomination and its leader. And what legitimate reason could the state have for wanting to know how much (if anything) Dr. Walsh was paid for preaching?

The ridiculousness of this discovery request only underscores the outlandish nature of this entire lawsuit. The State of Georgia hired a man as its public health director, but then fired him after reviewing his sermons. Why the state thought that was a good idea, or why a man was fired for the content of his preaching in the first place, remains a mystery. Then the state only compounded its error by requesting, as part of the lawsuit, copies of his sermons and other religious materials.

While withdrawing the request for sermons is a welcome development, Governor Deal and the state of Georgia need to fix the wrong done to Dr. Walsh that led to this lawsuit in the first place. Governor Deal’s administration, from its rejection of religious liberty legislation to its appointment of officials who have created this mess for Dr. Walsh, has permitted an environment to fester in which government officials think these types of actions are acceptable. Governor Deal should actively work to resolve this matter, and restore Dr. Walsh’s career immediately.

For those who remain steadfast in refusing to believe religious liberty is an important issue this election, look no further than the case of Eric Walsh.

Sign our petition in support of Dr. Walsh at Frc.org/Walsh.

Setting the Record Straight on RFRA (Again)

by Travis Weber

September 8, 2016

A recent NBC article about Indiana’s RFRA and its use by religious minorities (in addition to highlighting the ACLU’s ongoing hypocrisy on religious freedom) fails to accurately describe how RFRA operates.

At one point, the article states:

One week later, after intense national criticism, Pence amended the law explicitly preventing businesses from denying service based on ‘race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.’ With this, the Indiana state law came closer to the federal religious law and similar laws in other states.”

This is false. The federal RFRA and almost all state RFRAs contain no such amendment. They’ve operated well for years, protecting individuals like the Muslim inmate highlighted in this article, and others.

The article also implies that RFRA without the “fix” could not help the inmate:

After Pence’s “fix” the law became largely disarmed from doing what many critics said was its original discriminatory intent. In fact, the opposite happened, the law has since become an extra tool to fight against religious discrimination, [Professor] Katz said.”

Yet a Muslim inmate bringing a claim under RFRA with the “fix” is not the “opposite” of what he could have done before the “fix.” The provision of RFRA he is using to bring his claim (the same provision which has been around since 1993 with little controversy) was not changed at all. His claim is the exact same under RFRA with or without the “fix.”

To its credit, the article did accurately frame RFRA in this quote by another law professor:

What people tend to forget is that the statute is not a ‘broad exemption or a get out of jail free card,’ he said. Even though there is an exemption for religious freedom under the law, it doesn’t mean the state will grant it, he said.”

That certainly seemed lost on the media in the public debate last year. This balancing test has been a part of RFRA since its inception, and is true regardless of whether the “fix” is part of the law. If only everyone would take the time to understand this.

Protect Your Military Chaplains from a Bully

by Chris Gacek

September 2, 2016

In the last several years, the religious freedoms of members of the military have suffered an almost constant threat of restriction and reduction. There have been several private organizations, including Family Research Council, and members of Congress who have worked to preserve the religious freedoms of those serving in our armed forces. One of the stalwarts in this endeavor has been Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia.

Mr. Forbes is leaving Congress at the end of this term, and the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty (Chaplain Alliance), a group dedicated to protecting the rights of military chaplains, chose to honor Mr. Forbes for his service to the nation at a private, after-work event on July 12, 2016. In attendance were several uniformed military chaplains. They included the Chief of Chaplains of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. (Chaplain) Dondi Costin, who delivered a benediction while in uniform. Several members of the House and one United States Senator were also in attendance. Photographs of the event were taken and posted online.

This allowed anti-Christian activist “Mikey” Weinstein an opportunity to attack Maj. Gen Costin and two other chaplains for their participation in the event by filing a complaint with the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, Glenn Fine. With typically histrionic and excessive rhetoric, Weinstein asked that all three be formally disciplined. Weinstein presents a pretext for attacking Rep. Forbes and the event based on the Congressman’s opposition to the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and his orthodox Christian beliefs about sexuality and marriage. Given Weinstein’s longstanding track record of anti-Christian animus, his raising of LGBT issues is mere window-dressing. Forbes could have opposed funding for dog parks in Katmandu, and that would have served almost as easily in Weinstein’s mind as a pretext for his attack.

I point the reader to a nicely crafted blog post by attorney and former law professor Skip Ash who runs through the constitutional arguments involved and finds them, as with most of Weinstein’s hackneyed arguments, to be without merit.

What is of particular note is Weinstein’s complete and utter lack of perspective. Does he honestly believe that a retirement-type event honoring a member of Congress who has supported the needs of chaplains would not be attended by appreciative members of the military chaplaincy? Is he really so misguided as to think that the DOD IG is going to state that military chaplains attending a retirement event for a member of the House in the company of other House members and a U.S. Senator is a punishable offense? Sadly, he appears to be.

It isn’t exactly clear what Weinstein thinks chaplains should be doing. He has repeatedly complained about the public expression of Christian faith in the military. To me, this seems like the perfect event at which chaplains are entitled to work as men and women of the cloth and servants of the people.

Consequently, I would urge those who support chaplains and the vital work they do to assist a “Stop and Protect” petition drive organized by the Chaplain Alliance. The petition states:

As a deeply concerned citizen, I am calling on leaders in Washington, D.C. to stop these unprecedented attacks on military members exercising their freedom of religion and expression. Our servicemen and servicewomen put themselves in harm’s way to protect our freedom and God-given constitutional rights. It’s time for you to protect theirs!

Once 10,000 signatures have been gathered, Chaplain Alliance will hand deliver the petitions “to the offices of key leaders on Capitol Hill, including Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter (D), John McCain (R), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mac Thornberry (R), who chairs the House Armed Services Committee, and others.”

Help protect our chaplains in their important work, and sign the Chaplain Alliance’s petition today.

Ending the Secular Witch Hunt

by Peter Sprigg

August 26, 2016

Review of:

It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies, by Mary Eberstadt (New York: Harper, 2016).

Mary Eberstadt offers a concise diagnosis of the growing problem of hostility to religious freedom in the Western world, in her new book, It’s Dangerous to Believe: Religious Freedom and Its Enemies.

Her historical analysis notes that, contrary to progressivist myths about Christians exercising “theocratic” power, the influence of religion has been generally in decline ever since the French Revolution. However, she cites two recent historical events as triggering a more virulent hostility to religion—the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, which raised concern about the dangers of religious fanaticism; and the Catholic priest sex abuse scandals revealed in 2002, which solidified cynicism about institutional religion.

Eberstadt also cites two key legal battles in which the secular left discounted the importance of protecting religious liberty—the HHS contraceptive mandate in Obamacare; and the Supreme Court’s 2015 redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples in Obergefell v. Hodges.

The Obama administration’s insistence on forcing an order of Catholic nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, to pay for abortifacient contraceptives is cited as an example of how the poor—supposedly the subjects of progressive concern—are subordinated to other ideological goals. She points out the abundances of charitable works and social services provided by religious believers, and notes that these agencies simply cannot be replaced by their secular or government-run counterparts. Yet secular progressives prefer to shut such agencies down (like they have Catholic adoption agencies that dare give preference to mother-father households) rather than allow dissent from the progressive worldview. Another chapter highlights how Christian education—whether in the form of student groups, distinctively Christian institutions, or homeschooling—has also been in the crosshairs of the Left.

Eberstadt argues, however, that the secular progressivism is not merely anti-faith, but actually represents a competing faith, explaining that “the sexual revolution has given rise to a new secularist faith of its own whose founding principles are the primacy of pleasure and self-will.” This faith actually mirrors Christianity in some ways, with its own “secular saints” (Sanger, Kinsey), “foreign missionaries,” “quasi-demonology,” and “canon of texts and doctrine.”

They believe they are in possession of a higher truth,” Eberstadt explains, “and they fight to universalize it.” This helps explain the ferocity of their attacks upon those who hold to traditional Judeo-Christian morality—“the only remaining minority that can be mocked and denigrated … [n]ot to mention fired, fined, or otherwise punished for their beliefs.”

Eberstadt does not hesitate to describe the attacks on believers as a “witch hunt”—and to compare them directly and in detail with similar “moral panics” in the past, including the day-care sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980’s, the McCarthyism of the 1950’s, and the granddaddy of them all, the Salem witch trials of 1692. “‘Bigot’ and ‘hater’ are the new ‘wizard’ and ‘witch,’” she explains; “epithets that intentionally demean and dehumanize.” Yet even serious consequences—like the armed assault upon the Family Research Council offices in Washington in 2012—has not deterred activists like those at the Southern Poverty Law Center from employing such inflammatory language.

Progressives claim that conservative Christians are on “the wrong side of history”—but Eberstadt flips that argument on its head, declaring that “today’s ideological stalking and punishing of Christians is going to look contemptible in history’s rearview mirror.”

This leads to the most distinctive aspect of Eberstadt’s argument. Unlike others who have written on similar topics, Eberstadt does not say the solution is for Christians to mobilize and defend themselves. Other witch hunts were not ended by their victims, and she warns that this one will not be, either. Instead, she calls on liberals themselves to return to liberal values—such as tolerance, freedom of speech and association, and respect for true diversity. We must, she says, “agree to disagree”—affirming “the right to be wrong,” as author Seamus Hasson has put it.

American history already gives us the model for this resolution of the culture war, Eberstadt argues—Thomas Jefferson, whose misunderstood “wall of separation between Church & State” was intended to protect religious liberty, not to stifle it.

Empirical and philosophical critiques of the sexual revolution are legitimate subjects for debate,” Eberstadt asserts, and those who disagree with them should nonetheless “do the right thing by listening to what [critics] have to say, and acknowledging their American right to say it.”

People on both sides of the culture wars would gain by reading and heeding Eberstadt’s thoughtful analysis.

(Note: Chris Gacek and I interviewed Mary Eberstadt about her book on the FRC daily radio program, “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” on August 18. That interview can be heard here.)

The New Thought Police

by Travis Weber

August 24, 2016

Several things are notable about David Gushee’s recent column describing the marginalization of orthodox Christian teaching on sexuality. It may at first appear to be a review of legal and policy developments, but it quickly morphs into a cheerleading piece urging the marginalizing to keep on going. Perhaps Gushee simply takes glee in finding himself sitting on the side of the discriminator. The piece is saturated with policy preferences, not theological explanations. In this context, his mention of doctrine as a factor in the discussion makes no sense. If social and political trends and preferences are what matters, who cares about doctrine?

Yet it wasn’t any of these points which stood out the most as I read the piece, but rather the apparent celebration (or at least satisfaction) of the uniformity of the view Gushee saw developing across society. To him, it’s apparently no problem that everyone influential thinks alike—as long as they have the right thoughts.

As Rod Dreher has pointed out, Gushee’s thinking goes hand-in-hand with the suppression of freedom and religious liberty. As I read Dreher’s commentary and Gushee’s piece, my mind went to a book I’m currently reading: James Michener’s The Bridge at Andau—his nonfiction account of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 against Soviet Communism. As Michener recounts in his book, pervasive throughout the secret police apparatus the Soviets helped establish in Hungary was a paranoia about being suspected of disloyalty, of being turned in for perhaps even a comment that could be construed as hostile to the authorities. Conformity was the goal. Disloyal suspects were interrogated and tortured until they “confessed”—until they admitted what the authorities wanted to hear. They had to think as the authorities thought or they were no good.

Yes, we are a far cry from such a system. But never for a moment should we think the evil and oppression underneath it can’t arise in other circumstances and in other forms to take us unawares. Such celebration of uniformity is a threat to the foundational freedoms of our society, and is much larger than any one policy issue. It is a way of thinking about society at large, and Gushee seems to be failing at it in his new piece. At a minimum, he should reconsider his celebration that our elites seem to be “confessing” what he likes to hear.

I invite him to read The Bridge at Andau and welcome a discussion at any time.

Archives