About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Why I Am a Humanist

A few months ago Mark Rowlands, over at Secular Philosophy, wrote a  two-part essay, followed by an update, on why he is not a humanist. Several people have asked me to respond, since this question comes up often, for instance whenever I say that I am more comfortable with the label “humanist” than “atheist” (although I am most certainly both, and proud of it). So let’s reconstruct Rowlands’ reasoning and try to see where, I think, he goes astray.

Mark begins by listing a series of definitions of humanism, mostly from dictionaries, all taken from the website of the Institute for Humanist Studies (full disclosure: I collaborate regularly with IHS and have designed an online course for their continuum of adult education). Arguably the best definition of those cited by Rowlands comes from the Merriam Webster:

“[Humanism is] a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.”

What is wrong with this? According to Mark, “humanism is simply an article of faith, akin to many religions.” Wow, slow down! All definitions of humanism include a clause about its rejection of supernaturalism, and religions (as opposed to, say, philosophies) do include a supernatural component. This is akin to the oft-heard, and quite silly, refrain that atheism is a religion. Atheism is a philosophical or epistemological position about the world. When it is militant and intolerant (as it sometimes is), it becomes an ideology. But most certainly not a religion. To call humanism or atheism a religion is a fundamental category mistake.

Why does Rowlands make this extraordinary claim, sure to astonish any self-reported humanist (such as yours truly)? He says that “the unquestioned article of faith contained in all of these statements is obvious: humans are the most important thing there is -- at least in the known universe.” He then goes on to argue (quite appropriately) that there is no objective way to establish that humans are either “better” or “more important” than any other life form in the universe, case closed.

But wait, this may very well be a case of simply setting up a straw man for the pleasure of bringing it down with little effort. I don’t think for a moment that most humanists think of human beings as better or more important than anything else in the universe, and this position absolutely does not follow from, nor is it implied by, the tenets of humanism.

Let’s go back to the Webster definition, piece by piece: “[a] doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values.” Just because someone centers her values or way of life around X it doesn’t follow that she thinks X is objectively the best thing in the world. Think, for instance, of your family. Very likely, if you are a parent, you will concentrate your efforts, time, and resources on the welfare of your family. Most people, possibly even Rowlands, would grant that this is a perfectly good and honorable thing to do. But it absolutely does not follow that therefore you think your family is intrinsically more important than any other family on earth. It is most important to you, because it is your family, and that suffices to justify, socially and morally, your efforts on its behalf (though you should still set aside some of that effort and resources to help other people or causes outside your family).

Rowlands sees this point, but dismisses it with a rather forced example. He rewrites the various definitions of humanism by substituting “white people” for “human,” as in “a way of life centered on white people’s interests or values.” He wishes to show that one could pick any arbitrary group and the same philosophy would apply, showing that humanism is therefore a faith, and possibly a pernicious one. But as my example of your family should indicate, not all groups are equally worthy of special consideration, subjectively or objectively. “White people” is a biologically spurious and socially pernicious grouping, while “family” is a biologically natural and socially constructive grouping. There is a difference, and to ignore it is to fall for the postmodernist fallacy that anything goes.

Back to Webster: “a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason.” “Usually” here probably refers to the fact that humanism started out during the Renaissance, when one simply could not profess atheism, until independence from religion began to be asserted three centuries later, culminating in the Enlightenment . It is precisely because of the rejection of supernatural nonsense and an emphasis on human dignity, worth and ability to pursue self-realization that I think humanism is the best positive philosophy we have. How can Rowlands not consider himself a humanist?

The real answer, I suspect, emerges from the third part of his commentary, the one where he addresses miscellaneous objections from his readers. Mark states “Matt m [one of his blog’s readers] wouldn’t extend the social contract to animals who can’t understand it. Well, my twelve month old son is an animal who can’t understand the contract. Should I not extend it to him? More generally: I’ve written two books on this – Animal Rights (1998, 2009) and Animals Like Us (2002).” Ah, that’s where the rub hits the philosophical pavement, so to speak. Rowlands has a problem with humanism because it is too parochial, it does not extend to the rest of the animal (but what about the vegetable and bacterial?) world. Some of my good friends are vegetarians (no kidding), and at least one close friend of mine has always pointed out to me that she doesn’t consider herself a humanist precisely for the reason implied by Rowlands’ comment on animal rights: it is too restrictive a notion.

But I wish to make the argument that it is the animal rights perspective -- as laudable as it is -- that misses the point here. First, let’s take care of Mark’s twelve month old son: it really should go without saying that there is an objective difference between an animal that is in the process of developing toward a full grown human being, with good chances of becoming a person, and an animal -- say a wolf, to use Rowlands’ own example, who simply does not have the biological ability to do so. It does make a difference whether a being has the potential to understand the concept of rights or not: this clearly and objectively separates (without making them “better”) human beings from all other animals (including our closest primate cousins). It also makes human beings the proper recipients (and negotiators) of rights -- an inherently human concept, incidentally.

Second, and more importantly, my example of why -- and within what limits -- our own families are more important than others to us shows the fallacy in Rowlands’ argument: humanism, with its centering on the human condition, does not imply the negation of the ethical status of other living beings, just like our justified but admittedly subjective interest in our own family does by no means imply that other families are not important in an absolute sense. Indeed, many humanists are supporters of animal rights, and they base their support on their compassion as well as their logic, not on the whims of imaginary supernatural beings (at least some of whom allegedly tell us to do with animals what we wish, since they were created to serve our needs).

This is why I am a humanist.

29 comments:

  1. If I take issue with the 'humanist' word is not because I don't think it's an accurate definition, but because in my country, Spain, and I suppose in other Catholic-Mediterranean countries (am I wrong, Massimo?), the word has too often been kidnapped by the Church in the form "Christian humanism". Even if for me, the expression is a tautology, it was quite successful in post-Conciliar Spanish Catholicism (you find 165000 hits in Google, only in Spanish). The point progressive Christians made at the time was that 'Christianism' was the most perfect form of 'humanism', but don't ask for details.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It does make a difference whether a being has the potential to understand the concept of rights or not: this clearly and objectively separates (without making them “better”) human beings from all other animals (including our closest primate cousins). It also makes human beings the proper recipients (and negotiators) of rights -- an inherently human concept, incidentally.

    Well said, only now I hear a devil's advocate in my head, citing marginal cases of severely impaired or malformed humans who offer us no likelihood of their ever understanding the concept of rights. Are they morally equivalent to (non-human) animals? I also detect a resemblance here to anti-choice arguments on the abortion issue (i.e. an unborn fetus is a potential human endowed with rights, and therefore deserves legal protection).

    I'm aware of counter-arguments to these objections (e.g. an unborn fetus has rights, but then so does the mother who carries it, and for various reasons it is important that the latter's trumps the former's), and I think it would strengthen your argument to account for them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. egmr,

    That's an interesting objection, although, here in the US, the label "humanist" is usually preceded by "secular." One usually implies the other.

    However, there are also "religious humanists", who tend to affiliate with liberal denominations, like Unitarian-Universalism or Ethical Culture, many of whom are atheists or agnostics, but who see value in the functions of formal institutions of these kinds.

    I'm not sure why Massimo didn't include "secular" in his label. Perhaps he's just trying to be inclusive of more like-minded religious adherents. (For what it's worth, Jewish humanists see their religious history as a "purely human and natural phenomenon").

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good points guys. I did not include "secular" because I am trying to claim the term humanist for secular purposes only, but I will use the modifier "secular" any time is needed to avoid confusion (it's also simply shorter without it).

    As for mufi's points about severely impaired people and fetuses, that highlights the fact that there is a continuum here, which may even include some of our closest primate cousins. Since I don't believe that complex issues can be framed in black and white, I'm not too concerned with the existence of those cases, which need to be dealt with by reasoned argument (i.e, humanistically...) instead of religious fiat.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mufi "e.g. an unborn fetus has rights, but then so does the mother who carries it, and for various reasons it is important that the latter's trumps the former's"

    NO, technically, each life is absolutely & 100% equal until you choose to kill one or another. And the choice to kill either just means that whatever "system" placed value on one personage over the other. Values-wise, that's meaningless as a scientific argument. And if one happens to represent a system which has no use for authority, rule of law and common sense, who cares what you place value on. REALLY. The concept of “value” means pretty much nothing to you anyway.

    Point by point, detail by detail, if you have either a woman or her unborn little girl, what is the quantifiable difference between the two in respect to location, environment , IQ, status in society, potential life achievements, DNA?

    On all these points, the baby girl and her mother, mainly based on their DNA capacity and potential, are absolutely equal, as equality is understood anyway. And judging by the way that the humanist left tends to see rights and accomplishments between children and parents it would be thought that that this little girl would likely supersede her mother in achievements abilities and IQ.

    Isn’t that right? Usually the mindset of this world view is that young teens need to be emancipated as soon as possible, so that their parents "old ways" don't gain a foothold in their mind. Oh, so now the same parent who could have aborted this child knows NOTHING?

    Alright then.

    This baby girl, before she is born, is not a cockroach or a salamander and God knows that she is by NO MEANS A TERRORIST inside of her mother’s body! That is absolutely MADE UP NONSENSE with no basis in reality or scientific validity. And is also one EXTREMELY GOOD AND SCIENTIFIC reason why I am not a Humanist any longer.

    So, Massimo, are you working towards making a decision on whether I can stay and discuss these things, or not?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Caliana said:

    This baby girl, before she is born, is not a cockroach or a salamander and God knows that she is by NO MEANS A TERRORIST inside of her mother’s body! That is absolutely MADE UP NONSENSE with no basis in reality or scientific validity. And is also one EXTREMELY GOOD AND SCIENTIFIC reason why I am not a Humanist any longer.

    Oh, boy. This is probably not the place to debate the abortion issue, so I'll try to be brief in agreeing that an unborn fetus is, biologically speaking, a developing human and not a cockroach or a salamander.

    Does that ethically and legally a mother obligate a mother to carry her fetus to term, regardless of the circumstances? Not in my view, but that's enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In my time (I doubt there's any one left after the two last popes), Christian humanists (in Spain) used to stress a Christianism mostly based on ethical grounds, i.e. they insisted on the Christian morals and let aside controversial issues (such as Hell and the whole Old Testament, which we barely read even in religious schools). Of course, that didn't make them less Christian.

    ReplyDelete
  8. caliana: "nrghghgnrngrgngdirdirdirdirflfwfnfr
    inrrefdwafnupnfboG'DOIIII"

    I don't agree with Caliana here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Does that ethically and legally a mother obligate a mother to carry her fetus to term, regardless of the circumstances? Not in my view, but that's enough said."

    I think you brought this up first.

    A new (er) medical procedure does not change the definition of what a human is and what rights it ought to have. Having the abortive techno is not akin to having enlightenment at ones finger tips. What if a person could be killed instantly, on the spot, by some kind of personal magnetic shock wave if some newfangled medical equipment determines and diagnoses that one has a long term serious illness?

    Does the existence of a stream lined medical technology justify the severity and finality of the action?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If I had gotten here soon enough after mufi's first comment I would have yelled "duck! here comes Cal!"
    Oh well, too late :)

    "NO, technically, each life is absolutely & 100% equal until you choose to kill one or another."

    I think we can thank Cal for giving us an example of the difference between reasoning based on presumed religious authority and dogmatism, and humanist reasoning that seeks to understand and flesh out the relevant issues and come to a reasoned conclusion.

    I actually think it is possible to come up with a reasoned humanist argument against abortion, although I might disagree with it on other reasoned humanist grounds.

    Setting aside feminist grounds for defending abortion rights. I would be willing to concede the possible merits of outlawing abortion if Cal and her ilk would be willing to compromise on issues of comprehensive sex education and unlimited access to contraceptive services.

    She/they would also need to concede to a full program of socialistic policies of healthcare, childcare, and general economic security and entitlements to ensure that each and every child, and their mother, would not face any type of socio-economic destitution.

    Until Cal and her ilk concede to agree to socialistic policies such as these, we can just assume that Cal doesn't care about the life of a child, but instead controlling peoples sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "A new (er) medical procedure does not change the definition of what a human is and what rights it ought to have."

    Humanists reject the near-arbitrary division between what is a "human" and what isn't a "human". The only definition of "human being" by which your position makes sense is this:

    "Human: a glob of biomass that forms at the exact moment of fertilization and ceases to be human when the glob's heart stops for good."

    Why not say that sperm cells and egg cells are "humans" too and have rights? Shall we mourn the loss of millions of sperm every time I masturbate? They're biologically part of the human species, after all.

    But of course Caliana wouldn't agree with this. Why? Because her notion of what a human is is all about Theology, and nothing else. She believes in ensoulment. If I have to respect that, I might as well respect Holocaust denial.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cal, a fetus is NOT a human being. It has certain potential to become one if carried to term, but the fully-grown adult female carrying said fetus is worth immesurably more. You can't even be honest about WHY you consider the two to be equal (although you dropped a big hint with your use of "100%" human): you think that a fetus has been "ensoulled". You also know, however, that such an argument won't fly in this secular audience, hence your spurious attempts at justification. Suppressio veri, however, is a lie.
    Shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  13. People, people, you did it again! Once again Cal has been able to drag you into a discussion on abortion that has little to do with the post. Oh well, "enjoy" :)

    ReplyDelete
  14. “[Humanism is] a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values;..."

    And I see no reason why these humanist values would necessarily exclude some extension of concern and compassion to the well being of animals. The animal predator does not have the ability to contemplate what rights he might extend to his prey, nor do parasitic animals think at all what concern they might extend to their human host. We humans have the capacity to think and argue about what are the proper boundaries of our concern and compassion, and to what rights we give to animals (or proto-human fetuses).

    Seems to me that when an animal rights advocate argues for the rights of animals, it is based on their human interests and values, not some intrinsic and objective measure outside of human values. I do think there is an objective standard based on the question; does the given treatment of an animal cause needless suffering? The answer should guide us on a humanist stance towards animal rights. In general, as humans, we regard needless suffering as bad, and should extend that concern to animals that can suffer. Fortunately, very young human fetuses and most parasites do not suffer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sheldon, thanks for the well-reasoned response. I agree with what you say regarding social policy and unwanted pregnancies, although I cannot set aside feminist (or perhaps libertarian) grounds so easily.

    I think it should be clear to all (except Caliana, it seems) that my initial comments regarding abortion assumed Massimo's secular-humanist premises, so I think it's fair of me to say that Caliana's injecting her dogmatic, black-and-white, religious thinking into the discussion was a rather rude non sequitor that does not nothing to aid her cause - quite the contrary, it's a huge turn-off.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "She/they would also need to concede to a full program of socialistic policies of healthcare, childcare, and general economic security and entitlements to ensure that each and every child, and their mother, would not face any type of socio-economic destitution."

    Socialism FLAT OUT can never take the role of a father. The fact that some people have had bad fathers does not make the best possible case for greater levels of socialism. How about if we all just "concede" to being better fathers and mothers? What you are suggesting is the lazy, less rigorous way.

    I, for one, darn well do not want to be a poor mother to my children and so I sure as heck expect all you guys TO BE GREAT FATHERS TO YOUR CHILDREN as well, and to encourage others to do the same.

    What you are asking for here expects the worst in human behavior. I, otoh, ABSOLUTELY expect the best.

    And MUFI, I just don't care at all if it's "turn off". Too bad for whoever thinks that. They just are looking for a "soft life" apparently.

    If you want to 'run around' and refuse to be a good father, only those people ought to pay into whatever socialism HAS to be implemented.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "She believes in ensoulment. If I have to respect that, I might as well respect Holocaust denial."

    And it's not my fault that you have no concept of prioritization of matters of souls and the human spirit, Joseph. What would the worth then of all the 6 mil Jews and 5 mil Gentiles lost in the HLCST if there were no net loss of 11 Mil souls into eternity? Those peoples lives meant something, ya know...and lives of children lost today to "lifestyle worship", they MEAN something TOO.

    Ive been to the children's HLCST museum in Israel, and if your heart is at all able to be "broken", God will break it into a thousand million pieces there. If you are resolved, otoh, to remain hard and cold, you will just become increasingly angry and infuriated with people like me for the rest of your life.

    And isn't that pretty much like hell on earth, right here right now? I'd say so. And it's certainly not what I'd wish for you.

    ReplyDelete
  18. caliana said:

    If you want to 'run around' and refuse to be a good father, only those people ought to pay into whatever socialism HAS to be implemented.

    Who said anything about "running around"? We were discussing humanist ethics (particularly as they apply to marginal cases) when you charged in with your dogmatic religious views, which no one here appears to share.

    If your only intention here is to bash the premises of the discussion (not to mention personally attack complete strangers), then I suggest you go elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mm... haven't been here in a while; Cal's got an account now.. Arguing with her is like playing tennis, but with a wall instead of a human opponent.

    Massimo, what does humanism offer that atheism or agnosticism do not offer? I'll look into it at the website you provided, but I'd like to know your take on it as well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. valera,

    welcome back. In short, I think of humanism as a positive philosophical position, trying to articulate issues of morality and conduct in life.

    Being atheist or agnostic, on the other hand, is simply an epistemological statement about the god question: in the first case you don't think there is a god (as I do), in the second you don't think you can say anything meaningful about the question. But neither position implies any particular philosophy of life.

    There is no logical contradiction between being an atheist and a nazi (though few atheists are, I'm relieved to say!), but there is a complete incompatibility between any authoritarianism and humanism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "although I cannot set aside feminist (or perhaps libertarian) grounds so easily."

    Mufi,
    I agree with you. What I meant was to set aside for the sake of argument, but I would still defend abortion on feminist and libertarian grounds as well.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That's right cal, the Holocaust was only a tragedy if we believe that those six million Jews had souls which are now in Hell!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cal,

    The so-called "pro-life" side is completely wrong in the abortion debate.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Massimo, this last argument to valera was certainly convincing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cal, the only evidence for soul that exists is James Brown. :D

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mark Rowlands' latest entry on humanism is up at Secular Philosophy, in which he seems to have entirely dismissed Massimo's family analogy:
    "Now, I say once again, be honest: if this was the prevailing ideology around which a person’s life was organized – unbalanced by any countervailing factors – wouldn’t you regard them as somewhat family obsessed?"

    Who said anything about a lack of "countervailing factors"? Mr. Rowlands seems intent on equating humanism with the most rabid, fundamentalist, Randian Objectivism. Humanism will be just as he defines it: a monolithic, selfish, speciesist, deluded, faith position.

    If someone professes to be a Christian, I may argue that they couldn't possibly be concerned with the environment since they believe that this world is only temporary, and they are mostly absorbed with awaiting Armageddon.

    This person might respond that they are part of the Creation Care movement, and that they believe it's God's will that they keep the planet and its various species healthy, as good stewards of the environment.

    I could then argue that, no, they couldn't possibly believe any such thing, as I've already explained what Christianity is "really" all about.

    And that wouldn't be much of an argument, would it?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Steelman,

    yes, I saw Mark's response, and you are right. I am in Mexico for a conference now, but look for my counter-response early next week...

    ReplyDelete
  28. JF "That's right cal, the Holocaust was only a tragedy if we believe that those six million Jews had souls which are now in Hell!"

    Why would we believe that?

    The righteous Gentiles, many who were killed, were more often than not Christian. That does not mean, of course, that ALL the Gentiles who died in the Hlcst were Christian. But also, even tho many Jews may have come into the camps as non-believers, I can almost guarantee quite a few more left this world or the camps as believers. known some actually.

    Joseph,
    Have you been Catholic at some point in your life? Former Catholics always find the messiest theological discussions to get into.

    Its okay. I can find our way out. :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. 11/21/08I

    Professor Pigliucci,

    I read your article in the CFI Inquirer and would like to share with you a few of my observations.

    I believe the word “religion” has a few possible etymological origins meaning “respect for the sacred” or “to be bound to or by” or “bound to the sacred” or “to reread”. The term “philosophy is rooted” in “friendship with or lover of wisdom”.
    The difference between the above two types of living, religiously and philosophically, is that one is bound and the other is free. I agree with you that atheism is a philosophical position and not religious. I also think, and I would be interested in your response, that theism can be a philosophical position. Here I am talking only about theism, a belief that there is something omni out there, nothing more. Here is my reasoning:

    Facts are our best perceptions of reality, they are pieces of knowledge for which there is no reasonable doubt (not all doubt, just reasonable, rational, logical doubt).
    We refine our facts as our knowledge progresses. At one time the statement “The world is flat” was a fact, for there was no reason to doubt it. It was an incomplete perception of reality but it was a fact. Today it is still a flat surface but curved and spherical. I suspect as humans become more knowledgeable our fact about the earth will become more refined, as all our facts do. Presently I think there is reasonable doubt concerning the existence of God; there is absolutely no sensory perception of such an existence. On the other hand I also think there is reason to doubt the non-existence of God; how does one explain the existence of time, space and matter? It seems to me that logically “absolute nothingness” no time, no space, no matter, should be what exists. The reasonable doubt concerning theism is empirical (where’s the evidence?)and rational (where there is no evidence, there is no proof) while the reasonable doubt concerning atheism is solely rational (why existence?) While I believe it is more rational to be an atheist than a theist I do not think that atheism gets beyond reasonable doubt, because I think “why existence?” is a reasonable question to ask. I also think the agnostic, the one who suspends belief, might be the most logical.
    The perception of God also is a factor. I think the impersonal force of Brahman in Hinduism or Tao in Taoism is very similar to the force of nature in which case the Hindu and Taoist are closer to atheists than to religions that stress a personal, conscious god. ( I recognize the fact that Hinduism and Taoism do personalize their gods through emanation and have many irrational practices but I’m talking about their ultimate perception of deity here.)

    I think that one can be a theist without being religious. I think that one can be an atheist without being philosophical. The vast majority of theists are religious, they are bound, and to varying degrees slaves of the irrational. The vast majority of atheists are philosophical and open to free thought.

    I also think one can be a theist and a humanist at the same time. I suspect I am one.
    I believe that there could be something out there and I believe (more strongly) that we should have a life centered on human values.


    I do not know much of the history or the philosophy of humanism with regards to its perception and treatment of animal life, vegetative life and nature but I would like to make a few comments.
    If humanism “centers” its way of life on human interests or values I think you are stretching too far by saying we don’t think humans are more important or better than non-humans. I eat animals not just because I believe my human life is more important than theirs but also because I believe my human enjoyment of hamburgers, spare ribs and chicken wings is more important than their life. If I thought otherwise I’d let them eat me. Same with plants. I kill bugs in the house and grubs in the lawn because I believe my happiness is more important than their life.
    BUT, using your analogy, while I don’t think my family is more important than your family, I am not going to eat or kill your family for my happiness, because you are human and not bovine or canine. It is good for me to take care of my family and you to take care of yours, AND it would be wrong for me to care for and love your family more than mine, AND it would be more wrong for me to care for an animal more than my family and yours.

    Would you please explain what you mean by “biologically spurious” versus “biologically natural”, and “socially pernicious” versus “socially constructive”?

    I would like to make a comment concerning Mark Rowland’s twelve month old son and a wolf. A wolf does not have the “biological capacity” to understand the concept of rights but neither does a severely retarded child, senile adult, or the insane. Do human rights for humans depend upon their ability to understand those rights or does it depend upon genetics? I’m leaning toward genetics.

    I always enjoy reading your article in the CFI Inquirer and I’m hoping you have some time for a response.

    Sincerely,

    Frank Gambino

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.