Don't Tear Me Down, Respect the Veterans.

[Snowman]

I am not sure if this had been posted here before or not but it is definitely something worth mentioning especially since there are a few servicemen and vets around here. Essentially the ACLU wants to tear down a single white cross out in the middle of the Mojave Desert. This cross was erected by soldiers that were mustering out and were recovering from the damages of war, to memorialize all those lost in war.

Don't Tear Me Down (http://www.donttearmedown.com)

[SgtM]

I'm sorry.. eff the ACLU!

[Snowman]

They outlived there usefulness a LONG LONG time ago, don't apologize.

[Drum Thumper]

Did the American Criminal Liberties Union ever have any usefulness to begin with?

[Snowman]

Did the American Criminal Liberties Union ever have any usefulness to begin with?

I think for a very brief moment before Jesse Jackson and the other bigoted racist got involved.

[Omega]

Wait, why exactly does the ACLU want to tear this down?

Any group, though, regardless of reasoning, that wants to take down a memorial to fallen soldiers, has gone too far. The people for whom the memorials stand, the people who fought and died, did so to help protect our country's freedom.

[Snowman]

They want to take it down because it bothers all the non-Christian faith religious peoples that happen out into the middle of the desert. Literally the middle of the effing desert. The other thing is somebody is giving them funding to get results. While your thinking about what the ACLU is doing here, they were on the scene almost as soon as the police were to arrest Professor Gates. Not accusing anybody of anything on the second one, just stating facts.

[Bopher]

So in other words they want to remove a symbol for one thing that they "feel" stands to much for another symbol because some other people who have they're own symbols that can be displayed anywhere in this country, other then public or government buildings of course. And those rights to show and display those symbols were defended by the very men who raised that memorial in the first place, out in the middle of nowhere.

And now people like the ACLU want to take that down and can hide behind the very right that those men died fighting for? If the baby wasn't sleeping right next to me right now I'd be a little more vocal around my house and I'm the only one home. To bad the government won't let us sign those petitions to have people like the ACLU disbanded. I know thats terrible but I hate it when people misuse our Bill of Rights to get what they want and &*%&*( everybody else.

[Quakken]

The ACLU protects the constitution and everyone's rights. They don't care who you are, if you believe your civil liberties are being infringed upon, and if the ACLU agrees with you, then they will fight for your case. This is not a case of the ACLU being anti-religious, this is a case of the ACLU protecting somebody's freedom of Religion and freedom from religion.

What we need on this story is more information. Is the cross on public land? If the land is owned by the government, no, it is not legal to have the cross there as it symbolizes a single religion, and it can be interpreted as a government endorsement of a single religion if the cross is allowed to stand. This is illegal. It should be not allowed to stand. The rights to NOT have a government sponsored religion are also in the constitution. Don't act like it's legal because its commemorating downed soldiers. It's not. I am not against soldiers, in fact war memorials are a good thing. But the instant it becomes a single religious icon, it becomes religious, and since it is on presumably government land, and only a single religion is represented instead of all of them possible, it is illegal.

If your civil rights were ever violated, you could give the ACLU a call. They would fight for you. It's what they do. The ACLU is a good thing that sometimes does things that are disagreeable in the name of the constitution and civil liberties for all.

[BuzzKillington]

I'm an atheist and I still respect crosses...

People make me sick.

[Snowman]

The ACLU protects the constitution and everyone's rights. They don't care who you are, if you believe your civil liberties are being infringed upon, and if the ACLU agrees with you, then they will fight for your case. This is not a case of the ACLU being anti-religious, this is a case of the ACLU protecting somebody's freedom of Religion and freedom from religion.

What we need on this story is more information. Is the cross on public land? If the land is owned by the government, no, it is not legal to have the cross there as it symbolizes a single religion, and it can be interpreted as a government endorsement of a single religion if the cross is allowed to stand. This is illegal. It should be not allowed to stand. The rights to NOT have a government sponsored religion are also in the constitution. Don't act like it's legal because its commemorating downed soldiers. It's not. I am not against soldiers, in fact war memorials are a good thing. But the instant it becomes a single religious icon, it becomes religious, and since it is on presumably government land, and only a single religion is represented instead of all of them possible, it is illegal.

If your civil rights were ever violated, you could give the ACLU a call. They would fight for you. It's what they do. The ACLU is a good thing that sometimes does things that are disagreeable in the name of the constitution and civil liberties for all.

I think the big picture your missing here is that the sterile white cross is an international symbol for a fallen soldier kind of like the rifle upside down stuck in the ground by the bayonet with the dog tags and helmet on top. I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the ACLU is a good thing, guarantee they wouldn't fight for my civil liberties if they had been violated, we won't get in to semantics. Also I sincerely believe that even if that is government property, it was erected by soldiers and last time I checked this country's founding fathers brought us all here under God. Most of the men that monument memorializes went to China, France, Belgium, England, and several other countries to fight for God, family, and country. I am not an extremely religious person and can't stand people that preach at you until they are blue in the face, however I think we oft forget what this country was founded on. You have every right not to look at that cross, you have every right not to read the bible, and you absolutely have every right to observe your own religion. But I absolutely guarantee you if this was a memorial for a Religious minority and someone from lets say the Catholic church wanted it gone because it "infringed on their civil liberties" the ACLU would be there to defend the minority because it is more prosperous for the ACLU to do so. So with all do respect I disagree and leave you with this, after your done with this why don't you try the crosses in Arlington (have walked the entire grounds personally), then when your done there why don't you try England, and if you have big enough cajones try taking down the crosses at Normandy. I DARE YOU.
http://www.knoxware.org/imagehost/uploads/1dd9ccd3f5.jpg

[TheGreatSatan]

I'm an atheist and I still respect crosses...

Not me.

[Snowman]

Not me.
Atheism: An organized religion against organized religion... just saying, might want to go with agnostic if thats how you truly feel.

[Drum Thumper]

Not me.

So, tell me, what about crosses that one sometimes sees on the sides of highways in memory of a loved one that perished is a car accident? Any respect for those?

[Quakken]

I think the big picture your missing here is that the sterile white cross is an international symbol for a fallen soldier kind of like the rifle upside down stuck in the ground by the bayonet with the dog tags and helmet on top.

They should have made the thing they erected on public property a bayonet with dog tags and helmet on top instead of a religious icon. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and their monument would be more to the point and clear.



I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't believe the ACLU is a good thing, guarantee they wouldn't fight for my civil liberties if they had been violated, we won't get in to semantics.


If your civil liberties were severely disrupted and the ACLU thought that your case could make an impact, then they would fight for you. The ACLU doesn't discriminate in the types of cases they get, and representing people in civil liberty disputes is what the ACLU does. I don't understand why the ACLU automatically wouldn't represent you, do you think they only represent radical leftists who want to burn crosses and kill babies? After you have your civil liberties grossly denied by somebody or something and the ACLU doesn't want to represent you, then you can make such a facetious claim.



Also I sincerely believe that even if that is government property, it was erected by soldiers and last time I checked this country's founding fathers brought us all here under God, and nobody else's God.


The only reason we can still have "under god" on our currency and the pledge of allegiance is because it is said that it represents all gods, whether you are a jew, a christian, a muslim or you worship the flying spaghetti monster. The cross represents Jesus and the majority of the Christian's God.



Most of the men that monument memorializes went to China,

Japan?



France, Belgium, England, and several other countries to fight for God, family, and country. I am not an extremely religious person and can't stand people that preach at you until they are blue in the face, however I think we oft forget what this country was founded on. You have every right not to look at that cross, you have every right not to read the bible, and you absolutely have every right to observe your own religion.


You also have the right to be completely and utterly unreligious. Having a solitary cross on government land like this, only representing one religion, is illegal because it would mean the government is taking a side on religion, a clear violation of church and state seperation. The government can have no part in religion, at all. It can't. It's not allowed to allow religion, minority religion or otherwise, to have superiority or inferiority over any other religion in its doings, and true church and state separation would entail that the government does nothing to favor any religion at all, at any time. This means absolutely no crosses or religious relics on government ground.



But I absolutely guarantee you if this was a memorial for a Religious minority and someone from lets say the Catholic church wanted it gone because it "infringed on their civil liberties" the ACLU would be there to defend the minority because it is more prosperous for the ACLU to do so.


WHEN has the ACLU EVER defended a religious monument on public grounds? WHEN? It has never happened! The ACLU is non-profit organization, and they fight for the LAW AND CONSTITUTION. They don't care how big or little you are, if the case will be a large civil liberties case, then they will fight for the side that is constitutionally sound! Just because it's a tiny church against a larger church doesn't make a difference in the ACLU's eyes, they will fight for the catholic church if their liberties are being denied by whoever, whether it be someone erecting giant stars of david on public ground, or its someone in a government office trying to push legislation that will make going to church illegal. This is another contrived, straw man, facetious argument. Just because you believe something doesn't mean that it's true, and just because you "guarantee" something doesn't make your logic infallible.



So with all do respect I disagree and leave you with this, after your done with this why don't you try the crosses in Arlington (have walked the entire grounds personally)

I've noticed several other religions represented at Arlington, also. There were some judaism stars on top of some grave stones and I'm sure that if you were a muslim or an atheist you could equal representation in your death also. If all of the monuments at arlen were christian, you would have an argument here. They aren't. You don't.



, then when your done there why don't you try England, and if you have big enough cajones try taking down the crosses at Normandy. I DARE YOU.
http://www.knoxware.org/imagehost/uploads/1dd9ccd3f5.jpg

I do not know the laws in england, and normandy is in france. They might have less strict laws there. They might have some integration between the church and the state. Maybe normandy is private property. Who knows? Luckily, this debate is about seperation of church and state in America, and not france or some other european country.

[mtekk]

Japan?


Uh, in WWI we were not fighting Japan.

Anyways, the cross does not have to associated with religion or in particular Christianity. The Romans used the cross as a execution/torture device. Just because one man who some believe is divine was executed on a cross does not mean all crosses are in memorial to him. The person who complained about this cross needs to be more tolerant of others (as does the ACLU in this case). Since the cross is just a cross, no associated Christ figure (dead, dieing or otherwise), it can not be absolutely associated with Christianity (and therefore the ACLU needs to back down off their high horses). Also, since the structure is 75 years old, I wonder if it can get into the national historic registry, protecting it from destruction. :twisted:

[Quakken]

Uh, in WWI we were not fighting Japan.

Anyways, the cross does not have to associated with religion or in particular Christianity. The Romans used the cross as a execution/torture device. Just because one man who some believe is divine was executed on a cross does not mean all crosses are in memorial to him. The person who complained about this cross needs to be more tolerant of others (as does the ACLU in this case). Since the cross is just a cross, no associated Christ figure (dead, dieing or otherwise), it can not be absolutely associated with Christianity (and therefore the ACLU needs to back down off their high horses). Also, since the structure is 75 years old, I wonder if it can get into the national historic registry, protecting it from destruction. :twisted:

You have a point. It will be interesting to see how this case plays out. Seeing as how there wouldn't be any real reason to be using the cross only if the romans used it to crucify people, it is a solid symbol of christianity. It is the reason we still see the cross today, is because Christ died on it. It is the most commonly associated object with Christianity. I want to see this case unfold and see if, because there isn't an Christ figure on the cross, the courts say that it isn't a symbol of Christianity. Who knows. We know my stance on the issue, I think that it is pretty much the symbol of Christianity because we would literally never see a cross used in symbolism today had Christ not died on one, but it this case could go either way.

[nevermind1534]

If the land is owned by the government, no, it is not legal to have the cross there as it symbolizes a single religion, and it can be interpreted as a government endorsement of a single religion if the cross is allowed to stand.

No, it's not necessarily illegal. It could also be considered historic at this point. I don't see anybody depicted as Jesus nailed to it, either.

edit: I didn't see your last post.

[killergamer]

Atheism: An organized religion against organized religion... just saying, might want to go with agnostic if thats how you truly feel.
Wrong... You can be Atheist and still respect those people that believe in christ and god. You just don't believe in it your self.

Real Definition: Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence. Doesn't say any were you cant respect people and there beliefs...

[nevermind1534]

Wrong... You can be Atheist and still respect those people that believe in christ and god. You just don't believe in it your self.

Real Definition: Atheism is the position that deities do not exist, or the rejection of theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence. Doesn't say any were you cant respect people and there beliefs...

That is correct.

[xRyokenx]

One: A symbol is a symbol is a symbol is a symbol is a symbol is a symbol. This one they want taken down happens to be a symbol for people that gave their lives fighting in a war. The lower case "t" is a cross shape but nobody gets mad about it.

There really isn't a legit reason to have it removed, unless of course one doesn't like having some sort of memorial for people that pretty much gave up their life to allow others to live in a relatively free way.

People get too easily offended. Makes little sense to me but a lot of people are relatively ignorant and too stubborn to be otherwise. *shrug*

Now the thing that bothers me is basically a corpse being on a cross. Or any other sort of reminder of death. But that's just me.

[Bopher]

My question, and I don't want anybody going crazy here, is WHO did it offend enough that the ACLU decided that it needed to be taken down? From what I have read up on now the understanding when the monument was erected it was depicted as a war memorial and has been to most for 75 years. Someone correct me but is the VFW a government run organization? Because according to this article Congress passed on the land rights from Parks and Services (Fed) to the VFW (Civ Sector??), that would make the land privately owned if I am understanding and again I don't want to make anybody upset here, we're all friends, and unless there is some city code (in the desert?) then the VFW should be able to keep it there.

The ACLU in my opinion has gone to far. If they wanted to cover all of this then they need to stop the families of car accident victims from posting those little white crosses in the highway. Could anybody out there walk up to a person setting one of those up and tell them to take it down?

Why should the ACLU only step in if it going to be a large impact on the rights of others. If I am the only one having a right blocked why as one person are my right not important enough to have someone come from them and defend them? Are the rights of one person, or anybody America or world wide, any less important then one group of people?

I hate to rant and I never feel like I make the right argument. Here's my bottom line. Leave it alone, its not hurting anybody. Do they know for a fact that a muslim, or hindu, or buddist is walking or driving by that monument and saying, "I am offended by that symbol." Have those same people got out and read the sign that says what that symbol stands for? Probably not and it makes me sad.

[Snowman]

Japan?




My grandfather rode on the supply trains in China and also helped defend China from invasion. In case you didn't notice the Japanese tried to take over the entire Pacific arena in WWII. I was simply using the the other crosses around the globe that are more well know such as those in England, Normandy, and Arlington to represent a point. I may be a civilian but I will defend the rights of our veterans to my cold final dying breath. Do not take this as me being aggressive or spiteful but where is the ACLU when the men and women of our country come home from 145 degree heat and get spit upon by people who's rights they just put their life on the line for. I apologize for every indecent, ungrateful, sorry, selfish, lowlife that ever has the spinelessness to disrespect a vet.

I have to admit I may have jumped to some conclusions about the ACLU but they are not completely off basis. Also, it makes me wonder why you came to such a quick defense of the ACLU, as well as jumped to the conclusion that may position on the issue was purely political. I have an immensely deep rooted annoyance with our current form of democracy. A great man once said that politicians are like dirty diapers, they should be changed often and for the same reasons. Even the most honest of men can go corrupt with power especially when they are voting on their own raises. So do not think that I make the assumption that I think the ACLU are a bunch of baby killers based on their political stance. You want my political stance, anybody that's been there for longer than a single term get rid of them. While your at it make them accountable for their actions and don't allow them to vote on what their paycheck will be. That's like putting a kid in a candy store with a credit card that he will never have to pay and he still steals the candy. You must pardon my long and very dreary posts but its not often that I can get intelligent conversation on things that should truly matter to everyone.


They should have made the thing they erected on public property a bayonet with dog tags and helmet on top instead of a religious icon. Then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and their monument would be more to the point and clear.


Don't you think that's kind of a ridiculous request of a bunch of soldiers who are mustering out or trying to recover from watching their best friend or family member being blown apart or killed in a bayonet charge. I am sorry but this is asking someone to change what they believe in because it may offend someone else. If it offends you why drive out to the middle of the desert to look at it.


The only reason we can still have "under god" on our currency and the pledge of allegiance is because it is said that it represents all gods, whether you are a jew, a christian, a muslim or you worship the flying spaghetti monster. The cross represents Jesus and the majority of the Christian's God.


This is another thing that puts the squeeze on that last nerve of what annoys me about today's society. I have nothing against what you said but rather it really bothers me that the minorities in America can stand up for what they believe in and change the traditions and belief systems in a country because if a majority such as a white male christian stood up and mentioned something about another specific holiday such as Kwanzaa he would be labeled a racist. Not taking into account that Kwanzaa has absolutely nothing to do with religion and was founded by a sadistic homicidal nut job. Sorry I will take a week off for Christmas and have In God We Trust on my money way before I would have it not be there.


I've noticed several other religions represented at Arlington, also. There were some judaism stars on top of some grave stones and I'm sure that if you were a muslim or an atheist you could equal representation in your death also. If all of the monuments at arlen were christian, you would have an argument here. They aren't. You don't.

I very much do have a point here and you helped me prove it. My point was that this cross is not something religious but a memorial for FALLEN SOLDIERS not a fallen deity. So thank you for helping me prove my point. These crosses are meant to represent fallen soldiers that fought for the very rights we are using to have this conversation. That is why you see the Star of David and many other emblems on these crosses representing these religions. It is why you will see thousands of Jewish names and the Star of David on the crosses in England and in Normandy. So if this cross comes down whatever little faith I had left for my generation will be completely and utterly gone and can only hope that my sons generation might get it right.

[Quakken]

In a nutshell, I think it disrespects the soldiers who weren't christians to have a christian symbol be representing their deaths. The government must have equal representation of religion or none on its land. BUT! If it's not the government's land (if it's the VFW's, or some other private thing) then I say that they should definitely keep the memorial. No reason to tear it down if it's lawful.

I'm just a strict constitutionalist on this issue. When the church gets too mixed up in the government, people's freedoms suffer. I never want people's freedoms to suffer. The bill of rights upholds their freedoms, so it must be upheld in any circumstance possible. This is essentially the ACLU's role, they, a private not for profit organization, provide legal aid to people whose constitutional rights are possibly suffering. The ACLU is not the government, if anything they try to keep everyone within the constitution, including the government at times.

[nevermind1534]

It is not hurting or forcing religion upon anybody. It is only something that was erected by soldiers, in memory of others. No disrespect was meant for, or should be taken by anybody.

Nobody was largely against it for the 75 years that it stood, until now.

[TheGreatSatan]

Atheism: An organized religion against organized religion... just saying, might want to go with agnostic if thats how you truly feel.

Look at the name dude. Satan. I'm a Satanist. Not like your preacher told you about though. "Levayan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism)

Anyway the cross didn't mean jack till hundreds of years after Christs' execution. Before his death, it was a symbol of slavery and why it was such an insult to be hung to one. Like someone else said, not everyone is Christian and not everone thinks a cross is a good memorial. I think a plaque and wreath would be more appropriate.

[KiLLERMAN21]

Calling Atheism a religion is wrong. Being an Atheist just means that you don't believe in any kind of god.

I for one don't like any religion, be it Christianity or Satanism. It is probably the most unnecessary things in society. We have brains for a reason. To think. You don't need religion to guide you in life. Use your own head and do what pleases you, when it pleases you.

People tend to have a horrible misconception of Atheism. They usually think that because you don't have religion in your life, you can't tell right from wrong etc. I tell myself what is right, what I want to do, and what I probably shouldn't do. Anything or anyone that tries to give me a set of rules to live my life by can just keep on walking.

We need a religion thread.

[Trace]

Uh, in WWI we were not fighting Japan.

Anyways, the cross does not have to associated with religion or in particular Christianity. The Romans used the cross as a execution/torture device. Just because one man who some believe is divine was executed on a cross does not mean all crosses are in memorial to him. The person who complained about this cross needs to be more tolerant of others (as does the ACLU in this case). Since the cross is just a cross, no associated Christ figure (dead, dieing or otherwise), it can not be absolutely associated with Christianity (and therefore the ACLU needs to back down off their high horses). Also, since the structure is 75 years old, I wonder if it can get into the national historic registry, protecting it from destruction. :twisted:

I have to disagree with the exact fact of the Roman thing. Romans would have used a "T" like cross as opposed to the "t" that symbolizes Christianity, Judaism, etc.

As to the road-side memorials, I feel the sorrow of the family, however it is litter as it is on public property, and why would you want to be reminded of your loved one's death?

I personally am Atheist/Agnostic and "Under God", Crosses, etc do not bother me. Every person has the right to believe what they want.

Now, about the main topic, I respect the veterans and would support them to the end. HOWEVER, it is technically against the law for the cross to be there if it is on Government land. I personally don't give a flying fladoodle if it's there or not. Rather, I feel that if you don't want to see it, stay away from it. It is your choice, as I understand it, to drive out to the middle of the freaking desert to see this.

Here's the thing: WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY. Some people may agree to have it removed, some people may agree that it should stay. I feel that a vote should be taken and the majority wins. Just like a civil jury trial, the presidential election, and most other things are decided.

Please tell me if you disagree

-Trace

[slaveofconvention]

I have always been of the opinion that Atheism is an active belief in the absence of a "supreme being" whereas Agnosticism is more appropriate in the case of an absence of belief - put more basically, an Atheist might say "There is NO God" while an agnostic might say "I don't know".

As for the issue of crosses in public places - I'm a non-practicing catholic - I personally have no real interest in religeon, but I have NO problem with people who do, irrespective of that religeon. There is, in my opinion, no reason why religeous symbols should not be publically visible and the ownership of the land where that symbol happens to be should not be an issue. The government in the UK doesn't own a damned thing - it's PUBLICALLY owned - I'd assume the same of the US, in which case surely the democratic nature of the nation should stand, when the opinion of the majority holds, not the opinion of the minority, no matter how well funded or represented that minority may be.

As regards this cross, my personal opinion is that it absolutely should NOT be taken down. It's "value" as a geniune memorial to the people who laid down their lives should more than outweigh it's "value" as a religeous symbol. The box that has been placed on the box is, however, a gross insult to the memories of those men. This is one of those things where, again, in MY opinion, common sense NEEDS to be applied over the letter of the law. Lets not forget that the letter of the law is only ever an attempt to document the spirit of that law. In the same way (and I can see me getting my ass handed to me for this as a non-american) the bill of rights and the constitution are, again, an attempt to convey the spirit of those rights.

On a side note - my wife IS american, and she agrees with me regarding the cross - it should NOT come down, so I'm not writing from a TOTALLY foreign perspective.

Remember - opinions are like ***holes - everyone has one and a lot of them stink....

What'll actually happen, most likely, will be a "compromise" - the memorial will be replaced with one which has less chance of offending anyone - and by the time it is decided in court, organised by a committee, designed by a "professional artist" who'll come to the conclusion that a plain marble block is the only totally neutral thing possible, the heavy machinery is brought in, the unions take their cut, the security cost of protecting the construction from those who DON'T agree with it etc etc etc is taken into account, it'll cost every man woman and child in the states a dollar or two - and in the end, no-one will be TOTALLY happy about it....

[Snowman]

Look at the name dude. Satan. I'm a Satanist. Not like your preacher told you about though. "Levayan" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism)

Anyway the cross didn't mean jack till hundreds of years after Christs' execution. Before his death, it was a symbol of slavery and why it was such an insult to be hung to one. Like someone else said, not everyone is Christian and not everone thinks a cross is a good memorial. I think a plaque and wreath would be more appropriate.

I haven't listened to a preacher since I was old enough to have any common sense whatsoever. I have been to a church for almost any Christian faith you can dream of. To take the given definition of Atheism as simply not believing then you couldn't possibly in any form believe in Satan if you do not believe in God. Without God there is no Satan, no Satan means no Satanism however not in the LaVeyan sense.

I do not base my morals or my judgment on religion, if I did I would be a completely different person than what I am. I completely respect the fact that not everyone is a Christian and completely realize that no one religion is perfect or can explain everything. Most of these worlds problems have started over religion or greed. If it weren't for religion Ireland would be at peace, the World Trade Center may still be standing (depending on what you believe about that), and the Middle East wouldn't be bathed in blood.

Back to the point of this post, I think that if the white crosses representing soldiers of many religions was an issue that the families of the soldiers of Normandy, or the soldiers at Arlington's families would request something else? No they take the great honor that their family member has earned while protecting our very rights to argue over whether or not there should be a white cross standing on their grave. I do not see why some are so hung up on religion when they say they don't care or don't believe. If you don't care or don't believe why is it so offensive to you?