Dear M-LO

For those that have yet to read our previous and satirical post on recycling there was a spicey comment that was made by one of our valued readers M-Lo. In that comment there were enough accusations and suggestions that I feel compelled to dedicate an entire blog posting to it.

In this blog titled "The Spirit of the Law" we seek ways to express our opinion on a variety of issues with the goal to understand how they effect us as Latter Day Saints. Some of these opinions that are expressed are positive, or faith promoting, some are a written with a voice of disdain for a certain practices or ideologies. Some are simply meant to make you laugh and to enjoy all the humor that life has to offer. Most Fridays we try to do a "Friday Morning Light" topic that is meant to be heavy on the sarcasm, and light on hidden meanings. The posting entitled "recycle regularly" was example of that.

However in M-Lo's response to the posting she felt to imply that we write a "negative" blog. It is in the spirit of fairness I wish to answer some of the charges laid against us.

In her opening comment it was said in relation to the "Recycle Regularly" post, "That is just annoying! A litte funny, mostly annoying. If I remember right (and I do) we were given stewardship over the earth and it is so annoying that mormons take it lightly and make fun of recycling and going green, etc..."

To be fair, I was not meaning to insult recycling or people who do recycle as I am one of those people. I also agree that we have been given stewardship over the earth. With that being said I can see how you took that posting the opposite way of how it was intended. However, that comment was then followed with this statement, "I think you should try taking a positive angle on this site. You seem like a very bitter person and it leaks all over the site."

To this I think you might need to do some research before making such an accusation. Let me first point out that there are two people that do a majority of the postings on this blog (all are invited to participate upon our approval by the way). The accusations that you have made regarding me (James Numark) are not fairly judged. I have had my share of postings that have had what many deem as a positive agenda. For example I complimented Obama for things that he has said right. Then there was another one recently on the beauties of section 134 of the D&C with respect to the policies of governments today even though it was written over a 170 years ago. One of my first postings for this blog was a discussion on the positive impact we as LDS can have in politics-like Mitt Romney.

Who is to say that a voice of warning against potentially adversarial ways of thinking is not positive in its goals and intentions? I have yet to read in the scriptures or hear teachings by the prophets and apostles, anything that says that we are to not stand as a voice against wrongs in society. Even President Hinckley talked about Gays, Abortion, crime, etc. It is my opinion that perhaps we should not consider things in the light of positive or negative, but simply events that happen in our lives. To consider something positive or negative in and of itself is making an subjective judgment call. To one person something may be positive, to another it is negative. Many things in life including the gospel effect people in different ways. Here, we simply share our opinion and let the reader decide.

But you have not simply said that the posts are negative, you stated that I am a bitter person (or plural if you meant both M. Galt and I). Such an accusation is never a statement you can make without sounding negative and accusational yourself. So try not to tread on hypocritical waters here. But to illustrate how I feel your assessment is incomplete, I will speak in relation to the blog in which the comments were posted.

I for one, am not someone who is tossed about with every wind of doctrine. To ignorantly jump on the "Green" band wagon and follow a growing mainstream "philosophy" does not mean I am not following the Lord or that I don't care about the environment. There is a noticeable difference between the two. Just because there has been a growing swell of advertising that insists in its undercurrents that you are crappy person unless you buy something that is certified organic or is "green", doesn't mean that I buy into that instantly. I recycle, I have 20 trees on my 1/4 acre property, I have energy conserving appliances (except my fridge which I am working on) and I shop at local farmers markets for my food. I drive a 4 cylinder automobile even though my 8 cylinder one is way more fun. On the subdivisions I construct I consult with Tree Utah and receive their endorsements on our subdivision plans to ensure that we are constructing sound, environmentally responsible subdivisions. I ride in public transportation as often as possible and encourage others to do so. But I don't wear a shirt that says "I am green, you're not, that means you suck." I do my part for the environment without trying to make other people feel like crap for not being "as green" as I might be.

Going Green, doesn't always help the environment and so you have to be careful what you buy into. For an example of what I mean, please read this blog entry on CFL light bulbs.

I have no problems with taking care of the environment, and find pleasure in doing what I can to preserve what resources we have been given stewardship over in my own little way. In that respect, I find your judgment of whom I am and what I am about off base and without merit. But I can see and understand what you are saying with regard to being more positive. Perhaps we should find the good things in politics and not consider that there are things not right in the world. You have suggested that we should be encouraging people to take a stance and not simply complain about our circumstances. I am still not sure how we are to encourage people to be involved in politics and in the societies in which we live without pointing out the things that need to be changed. To that end I have taken your point into consideration and I thank you for your repsonse. In the future I will consider your opinion.

Hopefully in some way that has clarified in your mind to some degree where I stand. Should you continue to think that we are bitter nasty people that sit at our computers all day finding all the things wrong with the world and share that with other people, perhaps you should consider that even that with which you have accused us is better than many are willing to do. However, I know there is much more to it. The 11th article of faith states that we believe in worshiping according to the dictates of our own conscience. For us that means we choose to discuss topics that we feel effect us or are of interest to us. To that end we started this platform so that others could discuss these topics with us as well. In many cases we hope to come to a consensus as to how we as Latter-Day Saints should view the world around us. Just remember there is good and evil in this world, and that we are to be aware of and not be afraid both scenarios. As Lehi states in 2 Nephi 2, there are opposites at work in this world and without misery we would not know happiness. The blog you seem to describe sounds like a "garden of eden" situation that doesn't allow for people to learn and grow passed a certain state. Simply dealing with only positive issues is like cutting out half of our existence and the reason for why we are here on this earth. Don't cheapen your earthy experience by cutting out half of what God wanted us to have first hand knowledge of. I simply ask that you try to view the blog as a report on certain issues and our commentary on the same. Comments are of course welcome if you feel we are out of place. We are not promoting negativism, we are also not endorsing the idea that if we simply don't look at the ugly things in the world that they will simply go away.

Nothing comes of nothing M-Lo and if we as Latter-Day Saints are not willing to be a voice against things that are wrong, then we are not true Latter-Day Saints. Elder David B. Haight in a November 1984 Ensign article entitled "Personal Morality" quoted this, “By your actions or your silence, you, too, enter the fray.” I choose to be a voice rather than sit passively by and think that the world is all roses and honey. So yes there will continue to be posts that will represent some of the issues that you consider negative, but please understand that is not the spirit in which it was intended. However, your point has been made and if there are others that feel your same way, let their voice be heard.

Recycle regularly

I am James Numark and I endorse this message.

This type of hope smells like the same old crap.

thought Barack Obama was all about changing Washington? No seriously, he he was going to come in, kick butt on the way things used to be, and drive all the old bastards out. I guess that plan started to fall apart when people started to realize this guy is a complete do nothing with no qualifications. So who did the messiah of the modern world pick as is running mate? Why just some old white guy of course. But not just some old white guy, some old white guy who is the third longest running senator in Washington. Joe Biden has been a senator from the time he was 29, he is 65 now. I am sure he is still as clean as the wind driven snow though.

O, he isn't that clean? You mean he has a lot of stupid things he has said in the past that will make fighting him like clubbing fish in a barrel? One of my person favorites is this one "In Delaware, the largest growth in population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I'm not joking." I thought the DNC was the party of racial unity? O but that racial unity only goes as far as when they agree with you. In other counties he is all for dividing people up by race and ethnicity. Why he is the smart guy who decided to divide Iraq up into racial and religious groups. We all saw how well that worked out for the first few years of the occupation. Maybe Joe hadn't been to the racial unity workshop I have had to attend once a every year of my working life? Strange that a senator who made up the laws about equal opportunity wouldn't have gone to these classes.

This guy is going to go down so easy, but I'm happy to see it happen. In fact this is the first glimmer of hope I have seen for the republican side. The left knows how weak Obama is and so they had to try to prop him up with this supposed thought guy with international experience. Here's to hoping that works out for you lefties. In the mean time enjoy this clip of Biden putting his foot in his mouth.

Gay Marriage Card? Sounds like a Hallmark Moment...

So this was a pretty ballsy move by Hallmark. I laughed because I wonder how many ideas can come from this. This is a whole new market! Perhaps, like valentines day and grandparents day, we have a new "event" created to expand the greeting card market. Perhaps we should start the conspiracy theory that Hallmark donated to the gay marriage movement simply for the marketing!

Gay Marriage cards.... Perhaps we should come up with the Anti-gay marriage card. Yeah! When some straight couple gets married we give them a card that says, "God thanks you for supporting traditional marriage. Have a good life together with your own children and your generous tax breaks."

What should Sheri Dew?

As some of you may know, Sheri Dew (former 2nd counselor in the General Relief Society) is president of Church owned Deseret Book.

The issue that has risen with some is whether or not Deseret Book should carry the vampire based "Twilight Series" of stories by Stephanie Meyer. Currently, they do. These best-selling books are very profitable and popular and they are about vampires. By carrying this title is Deseret Book sending a message that vampires are cool or acceptable? Stephanie Meyer is a member of the church and it is profitable so I can understand how they have made their case to justify carrying the title.


However, with the backdrop of the 13th article of faith where we as saints claim to seek after things that are lovely, virtuous, and of good report, or praiseworthy, do these books meet that criteria? There are some that believe that by carrying this book it is indirectly giving license for youth of the church to indulge in vampire-ish type stuff including the goth /death culture that often accompanies such society. "We believe in Joseph Smith and in saving doctrines not in vampires." While others feel that it is a fictional story and it should be taken as such. "We have been taught correct principles and should be able to govern ourselves".

So lets try this: If you feel that Deseret Book SHOULD sell the book, comment back with your case as to why it is acceptable.

If you feel that Deseret Book should NOT carry the title, comment back with your reasoning as to why it should be pulled.

You have all weekend to go at it. As for me.... since I know that they have chosen to not carry certain titles about Joseph Smith because perhaps the are too controversial, but they have chosen to carry this title, I think they are at the very least being money grubbing hypocrites. I understand some of the arguments for allowing the Meyer titles to be sold in the stores, and I feel that there is some merit to them. But as for me, I would think that with such close ties with the church, perhaps it would be better to avoid the appearance of evil.

D&C Section 134

(For those of you that don't have your scriptures handy you can use this link as a reference.)

I don't know of any religion that has as part of either canonized scripture, or as a tenant of their religion, anything with reference to the governments of the Earth. So does it therefore imply that because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in speaking on governments in a doctrinal fashion like in section 134 of the D&C, or The Prophet Joseph Smith's Views on the Powers and Policy of the Government, requires as a portion of our spirituality, to play an active role in seeing that government adheres to these inspired principles? Or in other words, is there a sin of omission if we are uninvolved or apathetic towards politics and in holding accountable the governments in which we reside?

Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants was given back in 1835 just 5 years after the organization of the church when a great deal of persecution was continuing to escalate against the members of the church. Homes were being taken, people were terrorized and the violations against the constitutional rights of the early saints were common place. There was little or no redress through the hand of the government with relation to these events. Section 134 was voted on by the general population to be considered in the D&C even though it was stated in the section heading that this was given originally as "our opinion". By unanimous consent, the section was added to canonized scripture and remains that way today.

In what ways are these doctrines still relevant today? For example, verse 6 starts out by saying, "We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates, as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty..." So does that mean that latter day saints should respect their government leaders, ie the President of the United States? But what if that president is not acting within the lines of the principles found in section 134? Does this mean that we have the responsibility to " hold men accountable for their acts in relation to them" ?(134:1) How do we reconcile these two things?

Another modern day application. I recently came back from a trip to California where as you may know, there has recently been the legalization of same sex marriage through a court decision. A few years back when I lived in California, I remember the church supporting, quite heavily, the movement that endorsed a proposition not allowing Gay marriage. Since this precedent setting court case, there is now again another movement to counter this recent court ruling to once again establish marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

In D&C 134:9 it states, "We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government" . The scripture goes on to say how this deals with preferences of one religion over another. So here is the point, "Is marriage a civil matter or a religious matter?" If we believe marriage to be a government protected right as well as part of our religious practices, are we not treading on hypocritical waters?

Is gay marriage wrong? In the eyes of the Lord; Yes. But how does one make the argument that it is wrong based on religious principles if they are not to be interconnected? If gays formed the Gay Church of America to which all gays could join, would we not therefore be forced to uphold their right to marry as it would be made a religious practice? So I ask again, is marriage a religious ceremony and rite, or is it a contract or civil union that is recognized by the state from which the license is issued?

I could go on, but I believe that Section 134 should be a more relevant and spiritual backdrop in our lives considering the world around us and the issues we face. Perhaps with political party conventions and significant elections coming up we should consider re-reading Section 134 and see if the spirit doesn't enlighten us on what our role is as Latter-Day Saints as well as what should be our stance on governmental issues and candidates.

Green Vaccine's... why not.

I just wonder how far reaching the "green" movement can go. According to the Planet Green Network there is a growing movement for our vaccinations to now go green. Apparently, other than injecting a virus into your body like standard vaccines, there are additional chemicals that come along for the ride.

If this picture (top of the posting) is any indication of the "power" behind this movement, there seems to be five people very interested in seeing that mercury and aluminum find no place in future vaccinations. My curiosity is what does "green" mean anyway? I thought that being green had something to do with the environment and with energy conservation. Does "green" have a definition or can we just call me defecating on my lawn for fertilizer considered "green" because I am using renewable organic resources?

Is there something that can't go green? Green, green, green! This blog is green right? No paper used in its creation? Or do our computers need to be solar powered to be considered a green blog? As Kermit The Frog once so prophetically stated, "It isn't easy being green".

Is suicide amongst LDS people the church's fault?

I came across this article by accident the other day but it certainly struck me. The main idea behind the article is this idea that LDS culture indirectly promotes suicide particularly among its youth. Some believe that there is an LDS factor involved, others simply believe it that there is a higher suicide rate due to some element of there being more available guns in LDS (or possibly just Utah) homes.

My experience is such that people do tend to rely on bishops, Elder's quorum presidents, and people in the church in general to be the solution to all of life's problems for them. As the article clearly states, most of these people who are being sought for help are not qualified to handle every single issue themselves particularly mental health issues. While I believe there are answers to every problem through the life and gospel of Christ, I think that we as a culture do seem to have a tendency to rely on church leaders that could lead to an unhealthy dependence emotionally speaking.

I do not think that the church's culture promotes or fosters any kind of endorsement towards suicide. But perhaps we should reconsider how we deal with mental health issues in the church as they come up from time to time. It is the handling of them that seems to be the place for repair. Mental Health issues are real and they are out there. Whether someone is considered "crazy" or "a pain in the neck" for one reason or another, there is nothing that says in the handbook of instructions that we push them aside, or give them callings as the 6th Sunday Gospel Doctrine teacher.

So how do we handle these issues? Do people know about LDS Family Services and its arm for offering assistance in these issues? Is there a place for faith-based therapy or is that part of the problem? Lets get that discussion started because this is a real issue within the culture of the church.

Reality VS Fantasy

As I have watched the events in the country of Georgia unfold it has brought to my mind what a precarious situation we are in as a nation. This is 2008 and we are seeing the Reds playing tough guy again as the world stands around without the balls to act. You hear all the liberals saying "well if Bush hadn't overextended us in Iraq and Afghanistan we could take on this real war." Yea right, these are the same people who 30 years ago where chanting "better Red then dead." So what makes me believe they would have the testicular fortitude to stand up to them now?

Regardless here we have this KGB tough guy pushing his weight around precisely because he knows he can get away with it. Why will he get away with it? Because he sees us as weak. Here we are in America playing American Idol with our presidential election hoping a freaking "community organizer" from Chicago who hasn't even been a senator for a full term will be able to stand up against this kind of evil. Obama is beyond a weakling and the rest of the world knows it. Thanks to our left we are too busy trying to invent new ways to weaken our energy in the name of fictitious science to solve the make believe problem of global warming. Do you think the Reds or the Chinese are willing to cut their own energy production? Heck no, they are busy subduing countries around them for having the nerve to think they are free. Tanks need gas.
Fiction

Reality

Then there is china. Everybody has their panties all bound up in excitement because they put on one heck of a show last week for the Olympics. Has everyone forgot that this country still executes those who have the gal to disagree with them? If anything the show last Friday was collectivism on display, thousands of people doing exactly as they are told when they are told to do it. Sure its impressive to watch and their economy is the fastest growing in the world, but can we see this success and forget whose back this is built on?

Does Obama have the will power to stand up to these people? Vladimir Putin straight up b-slapped a country for no reason, is Obama going to charm this guy into playing nice? From the way I see it we are playing in a fantasy world in this country when we are surrounded by a very dangers reality where in there are gigantic countries who want us gone. What's my other choice, McCain? McCain may never convince me that he is the man for the job but Obama and Putin sure as heck might.

All this being said the strength of this country has always been the Lord and even today we are throwing him aside in favor of a government we hope will provide for us. But why worry about any of this? I am sure you all have to text mssg your BFF's about that Paris Hilton video from last week. Wasn't she so funny? Who is she dating these days anyways? By the way did you get hose new spinning rims on your car? Those are soooo cool, I need a bigger faster car and a bigger house that looks just like everyone else's. I have just been so burned out focusing on my new diet to worry about what is actually going on in the world, They all love America anyways because we gave them McDonalds. Besides they just need to go to the mall, hit up a little Bed Bath and Beyond, maybe swing by Victoria's Secret while they are there and all those mean countries will feel better about life.

Not if I get you first...

There was someone that was arrested recently for planning to assassinate presidential candidate Barak Obama.

While I think that there is no justification for such action it does bring up a question or argument that I have oft heard repeated mostly in the liberal media by those that are anti-Iraq war. It has to do with the validity of preemptive justice or preemptive strikes. Many who disagree with the Iraq war have stated that they think it is a violation of basic human rights to convict and execute judgment on people for crimes before they are committed. The Guantanamo Bay situation is particularly under fire for this very reason. A portion of the argument with going and invading Iraq was that it was a preventative strike to keep "terrorists" from attacking us first. Many believe that it is not a fair or justified reason for the attack because they had not done anything wrong ... yet. I am sure you have all heard the argument. So fine, but what does that have to do with someone trying to assassinate ol' Barak?

Well it seems from the above linked article that this man was arrested by the secret service for an assassination attempt on the presidential candidate. Was a crime committed? Or is this considered preemptive measures to ensure that the future crime is not committed? The statement from this article reads, that the arrest of this individual was made due to some overheard comments made by the accused that if Barak was elected he would assassinate Obama himself. My question is was the arrest okay, legal, or justified?

The answer is, Yes, for the most part. There is a well established law addressing threats against the president or major presidential candidates. It is considered a matter of national security. But, Obama has not been elected yet right? The crime as it was detailed by this obviously unstable 'would-be' assassin is that the assassination could take place after and if Obama was elected; an event that remains to happen. It was not a threat to kill him if he lost or under any current condition of his candidacy.

While I am in no way condoning the assassination or attempted assassination of anyone for any reason, I just wonder why it seems okay to justify such tactics or use the theory of preemptive measures in preventing this future "possible" event, but when it comes to the Iraq war our actions are nonsense and unjustified. Do you see where this is going?

I would like to hear a Barak Obama supporter answer that double standard. It is okay to protect the life of one possible president based on a possible future event, but not the welfare of the entire country from constant and present terrorist threats? So to Barak Obama (who I am sure is an avid reader of our posts), does the idea of a personal future threat against your life change your opinion on the war? If you arrest this man, is that not executing preemptive justice on someone who has not even had the possibility to carry out his "plan" and therefore be found guilty of attempt to assassinate the future president if he won?

In my opinion, the arrest is borderline legal, but it is legal. Based on the fact that it is probably better to be safe than sorry. So it is with the Iraq war. Has it been the best, no. But it was probably better to be safe than to be blown to bits... again.

You WILL still love me in the morning.

So I guess John Edwards did have an affair, even though just a couple weeks ago he said he didn't. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that called a lie? It seems that this is just another in a long list of lies for this guy. I thought we where supposed to destroy every politician that lies, dragging them through the mud until they crawl to Jessie Jackson for forgiveness.

Well that's what happens when you are a republican, when your a democrat they call it an unfortunate situation. That gets my goat, hurricanes are unfortunate situations, the untimely death of a family member is an unfortunate situation, stepping out on your dieing wife with some hag and then having a secret love child with her is the true sign of the worst kind of human being. But as is standard operating procedure for the democrat media.

I guarantee that had Mitt had a secret love child we would never hear the end of it. Heck they wouldn't stop at dragging him through the mud you know full well they would question the Mormon faith as a whole for his mistakes. All of that makes this picture even more pathetic, This guy isn't a family man. He made a living destroying other peoples life's through false science and now he gets out of his own mistakes without a peep.

Jello is the bomb yo!

I know there is a stereotype that Mormons, and especially Utah Mormons, love their Jello. We believe Jello to be a simple, childlike desert, innocent of guile or evil designs. Until now.... Perhaps they have a new recipe, but I have never heard of anyone who has consumed a box of the simple and delicious desert then feel compelled to rob someone by way of Jello bomb. Well it has now been done .

A man purchased a box of Jello Cheesecake mix then decided to take the empty box of Jello into a video rental store and use it as his "ace in the hole" or "life threat" in order to motivate compliance by the store employees to hand over the cash. He told them that there was a bomb inside the Jello box that he could remotely detonate if they would not give him money.

Even a vicious box of Jello was no match for the nerves of steel displayed by the store clerk. He refused to believe that a box of Jello contained a viable threat. (Obviously he was not diabetic.) He is a hero! Yet another act of domestic terrorism foiled by the actions of our patriotic and brave citizens! No amount of 'danger' was felt and he refused to comply with this sweet-toothed robber. This master criminal, who told police he just needed some gas money (don't we all), was soon after arrested. We should give the robber credit for making the counties energy crisis and gas price problems an excuse to commit crimes. After all he is only using the oval office as his example.

I for one am outraged! Perhaps we should start to keep boxes of Jello behind the counter and require a valid ID before a box can be purchased. After all, these are tools used to create acts of domestic terrorism. We are not safe with such dangerous weapons so readily available. Perhaps we should keep the Jello in the cages like they do the cans of spray paint at Home Depot. Americans be warned.... Jello is a tool of the most hardened criminal minds. The advertising persuades you to believe that it is all good and innocent. We've been duped! We can now see this was a pilot program for Jello's plot to take over the world through mind controlling chemicals placed strategically in boxes of their products. Perhaps it would be a good idea to hold a fireside on the dangers of Jello. I know, let's invade the Jello factory! They are now part of the axis of evil! Abolish the diabolical powder mixes that promote the creation of such weapons of mass destruction!

(Okay I went a little overboard... )

Two of these things is not like the other.

I am glad to finally see some scientific facts to back up the assertion I have been making for years. That is that on average we as a nation are getting fatter. I have noticed the trend even within my own life, granted it could be because I sit in an office for most of the day and offices are like a black wholes (racist term) that once most people are sucked into they just cant help but get fat. But it doesn't look like I am alone on this one.

What really hit me is another assumption that I am happy to see validated. That is that our two most "oppressed" minority groups in this nation, Black women and Mexican women are also the most over weight. Here is the question I have wondered for years, why is it that the supposed poor in this country are the fattest? I mean you look at actual poor people around the world and they are skinny, not here, our trailer trash is actually fatter then the average person with a high income.

Two observations result in my mind. #1 How backward is America in that in other cultures being fat is a sign of wealth and here it is a sign of being lazy. In other cultures it says "I am doing so well I have an over abundance of food, so much so that I can get fat." Here it goes "I am so wealthy I am thin, so thin in fact that when I am 40 and it looks like I am 25." I am not so sure that is good or bad.

#2 How cool is America? We are so cool that even our poor people are overfeed. We are so cool than instead of actually cutting back on our consumption we invented surgeries to remove part of our stomachs so we could loose wait with less effort. So cool that we can go to doctors and literally have them suck the fat right out of us.

At any rate the scientists predict that within 20 years every African American women will be overweight unless something is done. So basically in 20 years every black women will be over weight, that is as apposed to just 78% of them today.

So when do we stop telling people it is ok that they are overweight? I mean we tell girls with eating disorders like bulimia and anorexia that they are sick and need medical/psychological help. When are we going to stop making excuses for fat people like they have an overactive thyroid? It seems clear to me that overeating is the opposite of under eating, still a disorder. It may be harsh but as the article points out because of the way our health care system is structured we all will end up paying the bill for these peoples unwillingness to admit that they have a problem.

Behold the future.

This house is clean

Recently this case down in Texas involving a church and a 17 year old girl made national news. The back story does not involve a catholic priest molesting anyone, but rather the evangelical and often raucous services of southern churches and their all too common practice of exorcism, or casting out of evil spirits. These exorcisms tend to be very violent scary experiences where not only is the person being "exorcised" is crying and screaming, but the people in the audience appear to be freaked out as well. The evangelists that perform these on a regular basis are borderline delusional and seem to be possessed of evil themselves. However they are often very successful at creeping people out just enough to think that they somehow need their services perpetuating the existence of these nut jobs who practice such lunacy.

Back to this case. This girl was kept at the church and tied up and held against her will for two days while she was tortured and abused by the ecclesiastical authorities as well as other parishioners in an effort to 'release the evil spirits that possessed her body'. With such bizarre allegations of behavior one would think that the church would deny such claims and declare their innocence. Just walk away like nothing went wrong. Not with these nut cases. No they not only admitted to it all but felt that they were right in what they did because it was their first amendment right to do so. The Texas State Supreme Court agreed with them and reversed the jury verdict previously awarded in favor of this victimized little girl.

On the basis that the first amendment allows churches to practice religious ceremonies that others may not understand, I have to agree they do have that right to a certain extent. After all, if legislation came out against such things, Mormons would be in violation of it with our temple practices and it would be unreasonable to consider such law as constitutional. But here is the big catch, and the one that I think the Texas State Supreme Court missed out on: Religious freedom does not supersede individuals rights to choose. Meaning you can practice just about whatever religious rite you can find as long as it does not threaten the life of, or infringe upon the agency of another. Keeping someone chained up in the back room of a church hardly sounds congruent with a definition of freedom of choice or expression. So what about this girls rights? She was even a minor at the time! Did the rights of a faceless organized religion supersede that of a human being? In this case yes. Is there a sin upon the heads of that church and the people that participated, yes. Just because 6 judges of men were able to absolve this church for the time being, does not mean that those involved stand with clean hands. Their argument that holding the church accountable in the violations to basic human rights would in this case force them to abandon fundamental tenets of their religion is a disgrace. The only justice here would be if that place went out of "business". Too bad there would be several others out there to still carry out the work of the adversary doing the exact same thing only now with the endorsement of the State of Texas.

So thats how it works.

So it all became so clear to me how hope and change works after seeing this chart. I am after all a visual person and so when the abstract idea of hope and change was told to me verbally I had a hard time imagining how this applied to me. It is after all very complex for my simple mind to get. Now thanks to the hard work of someone else (this is part of the Obama plan) I am getting it now. I give Obama a vote and he gives me money for being a "working family" that makes under $150,000 a year. I mean after all we all know that people who make over $150,000 a year totally don't work, they have minions who do that stuff for them. I guess Obama is the exception to this though because I am sure he makes more then this.

Singles BEWARE!!!!

All you singles out there might want to consider retaining an attorney before going to the jeweler of choice when getting engaged. Have them draft up a pre-prenuptial agreement that must be signed at the time of proposal. Why? Well, as this report from the Today Show indicates, Rosemary Shell, who will most likely never be even dated again for fear of litigation, sued her ex-fiance and won! For what? Well for changing his mind about marrying her. Perhaps now that he has seen her true colors that may not be too much of a loss for him. Then again being penalized 150k because you wanted to postpone a wedding seems like there is either one stupid lawyer defending, one really smart lawyer prosecuting, or both. And don't forget the panel of incompetent fools we referred to as "the jury".

Perhaps it would be important to point out that in most legal situations there needs to be legal or financial consideration for both parties in order for the agreement to be legal and fundamentally fair. In this case the jury awarded $150,000 dollars for "damages" that this lady suffered in the break off of the engagement. I am not entirely sure of how they came to the conclusions on the amount or the verdict, but her decision to leave job and home seemed to be completely her decision and was irrespective of what is required to be married. There was inherit risk in her decision, and that risk was to be borne by her as an adult, and no one else. No one forced her to accept the terms of moving away and leaving her job. She saw some kind of reward and accepted the risks in hopes of achieving that reward. So things didn't play out how you had hoped, but that doesn't mean you have financial compensation due because of it. It's like suing a company that you buy stock in because you were under the impression that they made the commitment to make you money. Should the stock lose money can you sue the company, or NASDAQ? That is simply ridiculous. If you are unwilling to accept the risks then you don't take them.

She felt that her reward was worth the risk and it didn't go her way. So what. Life is hard. I am not sure that when they got engaged the gentleman got on one knee and said, "I agree to marry you but only upon your agreement to sell your things, quit your job, and move here to my home. In the event that such marriage doesn't take place, the anticipated bride may seek damages. These damages are to be figured on a per diem basis for each and every day that an engagement was intact. Furthermore, the groom to be agrees to take full responsibility for the actions of the bride to be's and her employment situation." PUT THE CRAZY TALK AWAY PEOPLE! He probably got on one knee and said, "will you marry me?" The agreement was either to get married or not. She said yes. Any other terms or addenda were and should have been considered unrelated to their first initial commitment therefore the other conditions should not be effected by the original agreement. Plus where was the disclosure for him? Had he known the recourse for his actions I doubt he would have entered into the agreement in the first place. Its called informed consent.

Perhaps there is a counter suit due to the fact that she had not disclosed her personality traits, her full financial records, etc. and therefore the contract became voidable at the discretion of the injured party which option the groom obviously exercised. I still can't seem to figure out how there can be a basis for such a case?! Perhaps this is another Satan inspired event to scare people aware from God ordained marriage.

In the end, the thing that got me the most is that she kept the ring! (watch the video on the article page) This two carat diamond ring that she claims she is now going to sell! Shouldn't she have to return the ring? If that was part of the promise and commitment to be married; she should give that back when the engagement broke off!? That is stealing! Shame on the spinster!

The only question now is how deep the douchieness goes.

So how painfully clear is it that John Edwards s a complete douche? I mean even before it came out that he was sticking it to some over 40 horse face chick we all knew he was a a slim ball. Charging $50,000 for speaking engagements on poverty smacks of more then just being a little double faced. But what really gets me about the realization that this adulterer is a complete joke is that the mainstream media is not touching it with a 20 foot pole. I did a Google search on the story this morning and there was still nothing from main stream media outlets. I found some stuff from England where they even had the stones to point out that our media wasn't touching it.

Imagine if you will if any republican was caught in a hotel room, out of town, at 2 in the morning, with another women while his wife was at home with bone cancer? The coverage would be 24/7 and I recon even the second coming wouldn't garner as much attention. But not in America, no the chosen vessel to defend the "less fortunate" is so sacred that no one can touch him. Can we trust these people on anything? Not that we needed further profit that the media has a leaning to get socialists elected but this just deepens the evidence. To use the liberals favorite attack on republicans, this guy is a complete hypocrite.


Now all morality aside, all talking and politics thrown out, seriously, if you where a multi million dolor trial lawyer couldn't you find a better looking women to stick it to? At least have the decency to hire a high priced hooker. I think it just shows the arrogance of these people. They are so convinced they will not get caught that they feel they can just spread their seed around all willinyenilly. And he is most likely right as evidence of media black out.