June 16, 2005

ACLU Supports...

This post is going to be rather difficult to read. I assure you it is difficult to write. But I think those who support the ACLU and send their money to the ACLU need to know what they are supporting and what their money is being used for. Please don't read on if you have a weak stomach, as this is really rough stuff.

The ACLU honestly supports child pornography. In New York Vs Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, the ACLU (AntiAmerican Communist Lawyer's Union) claims that people should be able to freely trade, distribute, buy and sell graphic sexual photographs of anyone, including very young children (no age limit at all). They honestly argue for this. I know anyone who is a parent cannot even imagine how any group can actually make this argument. The ACLU can.

Free speech has it's limits. Everyone who's taken even a basic class on Constitutional Law (well, that may not be many any more) knows that -- the classic "yelling fire in a crowded theater" always comes to mind. Taking graphic pictures and movies of such things is beyond free speech rights...way beyond.

The ACLU also argues that producers of such filth should not be forced to maintain age records of their "performers." In their world, this is a violation of the (non-existent) right to privacy.

The ACLU actually argues (presumably with a straight face) that the production of vile sex acts with children under the age of 10 should be outlaws, but once the production is complete, anyone and everyone should have the right to view, buy, and sell such crap.

Why does anyone support the ACLU? If you donate to them, this is the sort of thing that your money is used for. If you support this position, then you've got serious mental issues -- please stay away from my family.

This post is part of the Stop the ACLU Blogburst.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:38 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Huzzah, indeed!

From World Net Daily, via Vox Day:

Whereas, The public school system does not offer a Christian education, but officially claims to be "neutral" with regard to Christ, a position that Christ Himself said was impossible (Luke 11:23), and

Whereas, The public schools are by law humanistic and secular in their instruction, and as a result the attending children receive an education without positive reference to the Triune God, and

...

Therefore, be it resolved that the 33rd General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America encourages all her officers and members to remove their children from the public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education, for the glory of God and the good of Christ's church.

That's a proposed resolution of the Presbyterian Church in America, much like the one attempted at the Southern Baptist Convention. It's pretty unlikely that this will pass, but it certainly should. As Vox mentions, it's certainly a good sign that Christians are starting to wake up.

If you're Christian, read that first paragraph again. The school claims to be neutral, which is impossible.

4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
-- Ephesians 6:4

You can't have it both ways. Luke 11:23 says "He that is not with me is against me."

So no, I cannot see any way a Bible-believing Christian can associate, attend, or support public schools for their children.

Posted by: Ogre at 09:15 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

News and Observer wants More Taxes

What a shocker, eh? The Raleigh News and Observer wants more taxes and higher taxes. No, they won't come right out and admit it in their editorial, but that's what they're clamoring for in the opinion piece.

They claim that "taxes and revenues are a big problem in North Carolina," but then assert that "advantages cannot be created or cultivated without adequate tax revenues and prudent public investment."

"Public Investment" means taxes -- and lots of them. Don't buy that crap about investment, it's higher taxes for all, no matter what alleged "public" use these "public investments" are supposed to be used for.

This article even goes on to say that since "Seven of the top 10 states in per capita income, such as Connecticut, New Jersey and Minnesota, are also in the top 10 in per capita taxes," the only way to increase per capita income is to increase taxes! Well hell's bells, let's just raise the income tax in North Carolina to 75% and everyone will be millionaires!

That fantasy-based article concludes:

We can have a moderately burdensome tax code with increased fairness, lower rates and a broader base, more adequate and predictable revenues and more transparency and accountability. And these changes can be accompanied by sustained economic growth.

So there you have it. According to the Raleigh News and Observer, we need more taxes and higher taxes, including business taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, so that we can have growth. The more you tax everyone and everything, the more rich everyone becomes. I guess that's right -- if by "everyone" you mean the government.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:55 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 15, 2005

Democrat Party Notes

Our crack research team was stumbling down a back alley the other night, I mean, doing some discovery reconnaissance, when they came upon a dumpster that was fresh from the DNC headquarters. The team dove in and started looking. After getting past the perfectly good internal combustion engines that had been discarded and the well-used nap pillows, they discovered some documents. Most of them were documents outlining how to take over the America by dividing and conquering, but underneath some old sandals, they found a notebook full of speech drafts for Howard Howie Dean. Posted below are exact quotes from that notebook:

"Republicans are the spawn of Satan."

"The Republican National Headquarters is like a bag of unpopped popcorn -- nothing missing but hot air."

"What ever happened to the Klan, anyway? Can't we get some more of those good old boys elected to the Senate?"

"And after the Democrats invented the internets, we're going to go up to Canada and win up there, too!"

"Of course Bush is going to North Dakota -- he named them as part of the Axis of evil before he invaded Iraq."

"Look, I'm no theologian, but I know that oil comes from Caribou in Alaska that are dying because of Big Republican Oil."

"I'd like to announce my new executive assistant to my assistant adviser, Evil Glennn."

"No, I don't want Americans to have health care because only Democrats can provide it for them if they need it."

"Why is Bush going to down to Florida? He's only going to Florida because he's trying to steal the next election!"

I wonder why they threw that notebook away?

Posted by: Ogre at 08:23 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Some Weird Stuff

Sometimes you just need to post something a little lighter. Things have been much too serious so far this week, so I now present you with weird auctions.

Yes, two loons with way too much time on their hands have created a web site with one purpose: to track and watch weird things being acutioned on eBay.

Some things featured there today:

The republicansfordean.org web domain name.

29 magical wish bones.

Lucky magic shoes (size unknown).

Isn't freedom and capitalism great?

Posted by: Ogre at 04:55 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

North Carolina Conservatives

I recently was introduced to a print publication that you should be reading. Note I did not mention anything about Republican or Democrat here, just conservative. If you label yourself a Conservative Democrat, this paper is for you, too.

The newspaper is The North Carolina Conservative. They've got a web site (but it's kind of scary when viewed from a usability standpoint), but their primary purpose is to publish a paper filled with conservative news in North Carolina.

The newspaper is filled with articles about what's really going on in Raleigh, including what's happening behind the scenes -- what's NOT reported in the FMSM (formerly mainstream media).

The paper is published out of Linville, NC and is a monthly paper. According to the paper:

The North Carolina Conservative is a monthly newspaper serving conservative North Carolinians. The North Carolina Conservative is boldly patriotic and committed to promoting the Christian values upon which our nation was founded. The North Carolina Conservative is a private, for-profit journalistic entity, not affiliated with any political party or religious organization.

You can subscribe for only $40 a year. Mail payments to:

The North Carolina Conservative
PO Box 305
Linville, NC 28646

Posted by: Ogre at 02:53 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Homespun Symposium XXIV

Bunker Mulligan.

I am quite embarrassed to say it, but I did not know him. This week the Homespun Bloggers are asking, in their weekly Homespun Symposium,

In honor of Mike, who was laid to rest today in his native Texas soil, this week's symposium asks that you reflect on Bunker as you...a fellow blogger knew him, how did he make an impact in your life, and how did he play a part in your blog career?

I am embarrassed because I read so many good things said by so many people regarding his passing. I see in various corners of the blogosphere many people who were heavily influenced by him, and I only now wish I could have known him. I had read his blog only a few times in the past, and only now and I coming to see what I had been missing.

So I guess Mike is now having an influence on me. I have been reading all the tributes to him. I now find myself reading his archives on various different days, learning about him only now, after he is gone. I see what a good man he was and how strongly he influenced so many through his blogging and his blog.

I am sure that he will rest in peace and be sorely missed by all.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:25 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Don't Like It? Move.

You may have heard it said before that if you don't like the rules or something about a place, that you should just move. Heck, I've been known to say that a time or two. However, in this case, it is the elected Democrats of the kingdom ofMecklenburg County who are saying it.

If you voted for Democrats in Mecklenburg County, you knew your taxes were going up. If you bothered to view people's records, you also knew that you were going to get more crime, worse schools, and worse roads with that tax increase. Recently the county Democrats voted to raise county taxes by 10.6%, while increasing spending by 13.5%.

Elected Democrat Comissioner Mitchell says that if you don't like the tax increase, you should go:

"If residents want to leave, he said, they should go. You can be sure that as soon as you leave, there will be someone there to take your place"

That's right, don't let the door hit you.

I've been trying to tell you residents of Mecklenburg County that you should get out for years. I've been telling others not to move there. They are doing all they can to drive productive citizens from the county, and now the Democrat elected officials are joining the chorus telling people to leave the county.

Just two budgets ago, the same Democrats increased taxes by 15%. Last budget it was only increased 9%. They will not stop. Get out now, Mecklenburg is beyond hope for productive citizens.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:00 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 14, 2005

A New Deal

I, Ogre, today, make this pledge:

I will link to MoveOn.org, Kicking A$$ (DNC blog), and the Huffington Report for a week but only if 7 of the munificent 7 Democratic Senators will agree to quit filibustering John Bolton and vote for Cloture.

Per Suitably Flip

Join the so-called moderates and make a meaningless, pointless pledge of your own!

Posted by: Ogre at 08:30 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Ok Moveon.org? DNC starring Howard Dean? That is more partisan childish game playing, the kind that is totally destroying our unity and keeping us from accomplishing anything real and important,therefore, I'll be blocking this blog

Posted by: Carla at June 14, 2005 08:56 PM (Kl5kb)

2 Sorry you don't like...well, I'm not really sure what you don't like. The idea that others can play silly games that the Democrats play? That Howard Dean runs the DNC? The idea that the US Senate can only accomplish anything "real and important" when it's what Democrats think?

Oh well. Sorry you think Democrats are childish, even if they are.

Posted by: Ogre at June 14, 2005 09:25 PM (i5VG6)

3 Carla, I don't understand what you're trying to say.
And your link tells me it's going to Blogger but takes me to Paternity Testing. What is that about? You're not spamming here are you?

Posted by: Raven at June 14, 2005 09:59 PM (8fMpB)

4 I suspect that's Carla from Preemptive Karma who like to post the "Slaughterhouse 5" posts (weekly I think) in honor of their friends the terrorists who bind people by the hands and feet and like to have 5 or 6 guys stand over them with guns...and slit their throats while they're helpless and crying for their lives. This is the kind of courage THEY display: a link back to a paternity testing site.

She could at least have the courage to leave Preemptive Karma's link there if she was REALLY interested in something other than partisan stonewalling.

Posted by: Cao at June 15, 2005 04:49 AM (RyucI)

5 Now y'all be nice. Carla's just looking for somebody to pay for a paternity test so she'll know who her daddy is.

Posted by: basil at June 15, 2005 07:00 AM (4Ek1C)

6 Um, since she(?) is "blocking this blog" (assuming she(?) is telling the truth, that is) I suspect she(?) would never see these responses ...


/TJ
PS - continuing Basil's comment ... maybe she(?) just wants someone to say "Who's yer daddy" to her(?) ...

Posted by: TJ at June 15, 2005 07:50 AM (6k3z1)

7 Bye Bye Carla. Sorry we won't miss you.

Posted by: Bou at June 15, 2005 02:34 PM (z7nbM)

8 Carla! bravo for blocking Ogre's blog. That means we won't have to read any more of your drivel. Only intelligent persons should get to comment here as Ogre has the power to turn people like you into llamas to use for his evil deeds.

P.S. Did ya ever find out who yer daddy is?

Posted by: Oddybobo at June 15, 2005 03:12 PM (6Gm0j)

9 ROFL Oddybobo! Nice one!

Posted by: Ogre at June 15, 2005 03:18 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Call for Flags!

Don Danz, of Danz Family has started a new project in honor of flag day. He's collecting photos of flags flying in front of homes. He will post all the flags in his online collection.

He says:

I am not interested in any flag other than Old Glory. I am also not interested in American flags flying just anywhere. I want a picture of your flag, flying in front of where you live.

If you feel like sending in your picture, send it to him at the email address provided on the flag site!

I'm going to search through my pictures and send him one tonight.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:30 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Parental Rights

This week in the Christian Views Symposium, Lennie asks about the Katie Wernecke situation that I mentioned last week. I think my views on the situation are already pretty darn clear, much to the chagrin of a few of my gentle readers, but Lennie asks more:

Is this a violation of parental rights?

Where do parental rights begin and end when it comes to medical treatment?

Is it a violation of parental rights? Very clearly and obviously. I am absolutely dumbfounded when people comment here that it is not. The parents wanted a different opinion from another doctor – nothing more. Her mom went to jail for it.

This situation says that if you dare to question a doctor about any treatment for your child, you go to jail. I already worry about taking children to doctors – and doctors "reporting" to social services and the like. Now I’m being told that if I dare question a doctor’s medical opinion about a child, I get to go to jail. How can anyone outside a total communist state even begin to suggest that this is OK?

Where do parental rights begin and end? I have a better question – when did the state obtain the right to take my children and treat them against my will, against their will, and at my (and others') expense?

The state has almost no rights regarding medical care when the parents are present and in a sane mind. If they want to refuse blood transfusions, who is the state to demand it? The only cases where the state should step in is where they always have the right to – when someone is in imminent danger of immediate harm or death. And even then, the state should only step in long enough to mediate the harm and then they should get the hell out of the way.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:36 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

New Carnival Alert

There's a new carnival up! This week you can view the inaugural edition of the Carnival of the Clueless. This carnival highlights

posts that highlight the total stupidity of a public figure or organization – either left or right – that demonstrates that special kind of cluelessness that only someone’s mother could defend…and maybe not even their mothers!

Everyone knows what I’m talking about. Whether it’s the latest from Bill Maher or the Reverend Dobson, it doesn’t matter. I will post ALL ENTRIES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER I AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED OR NOT.

So head on over and read some silliness!

Posted by: Ogre at 10:01 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Flag Day

(click to enlarge)

Today is Flag Day. Pause today at 7pm E.D.T. with the entire country to say the pledge of Allegiance.

Every single time I hear this played or sung, especially at the start of every baseball game, I get goosebumps:

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream,
'Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto - "In God is our trust,"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Posted by: Ogre at 07:44 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Government Competition?

I'm big on free markets. Honestly. I want competition. The North Carolina General Assembly just passed a resolution that is alleged to increase competition -- but as usual, that's just a lie.

The House just passed a bill that would remove a 1929 prohibition on STATE-RUN Universities competing with private businesses. So now the tax dollars paid by businesses to the state can be used by the state to put that very same business out of business.

You see, government cannot compete. Government, by it's very definition, is not a free market. Government, when creating goods and services, does not follow the rules of a free market. They do not adjust to supply and demand. They do not even need to make a profit because they exist based on forced taxpayer funds. So this process can completely eliminate all private business in North Carolina, were it to be taken to it's logical conclusion.

Allegedly the authors of the bill tried to mitigate this process by including a panel to "ensure the universities aren't taking away profits from local businesses or selling the goods that they already provide." So all the university has to do is beat another business to the market and they automatically get a government-sponsored monopoly.

I just wonder why the Democrats in the North Carolina Legislature (that's who passed this bill) hate private business so much. Why do they despise progress and freedom and attempt to destroy it every chance they get?

Posted by: Ogre at 05:31 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 13, 2005

New Carnival Showcase

The New Blog Showcase is a place where new blogs get showcased -- hence the name. It's a place where people new to the blogosphere can get a little exposure, sometimes in high-profile places and locations. It's fun to host because you get to read those new blogs first and you get to drive traffic to them. Most of the time, those new bloggers really do appreciate the time the host takes to read and link to them.

The New Carnival Showcase needs hosts. Each week I try and find someone to host the showcase, and each week I seem to always get one person to do it. I'm always a willing backup if no one else volunteers.

However, I'm getting ready to go on a well-deserved vacation. During that time I'm going to be drinking camping a lot, and will have little, if any, access to a computer. I will probably never see a computer the entire time I'm gone except at the alcohol grocery store. So I need to line up some hosts.

To host the new blog carnival showcase, you need only to make a post on Monday providing links (and optional commentary) to the blogs that are submitted each week. See the main post for examples of how others have done it in the past.

I need to line hosts up for the next couple weeks early this week to ensure the carnival keeps going! This is a good thing, so please, if you can, volunteer to help out one or two weeks while I'm gone. Just drop me a line at gre11@gmail.com>ogre11@gmail.com and I'll give you the required information.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:59 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Carnival, carnival!

Ah Monday afternoon and time for some carnival visiting. If you need some neat places to visit today, check them out!

First up is the Tarheel Tavern. This is a weekly carnival of blogs from North Carolina. Even if you're not in North Carolina, you really should check out this series. Each week the author of the carnival seems to try and outdo the previous week's author. They really are good. This week's edition is up at A Sort of Notebook with the theme of "getting back to nature." Next week it will be hosted at Mister Sugar.

Next up is the Karnival of Kidz. I'm not sure why, but every week when I see it written that way I see "Killer Klowns from Kansas." But hey, if you like kids (or kidz), head on over and have a look.

Lastly, we have the New Blog Showcase Carnival. This week's post is at 21st Century Paladin. The New Blog Showcase Carnival is where you can see and read the newest blogs in the world. Only those blogs that are less than 3 months old can participate.

So, if you need some reading, or even just some inspiration for some writing, head on over to any of those carnivals and read what's new this week!

Posted by: Ogre at 12:31 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Religion and Politics

I accidentally missed last week’s Christian Views Symposium. It was completely unintentional – I was trying to remember to obtain some background material to provide as links to support my position. I never did find that time, so I’m just going to post this and you can choose to believe me or not for now.

The question asked by XBIP last week for the Christian Views Symposium was:

Do you think religious leaders should or should not try to influence government decisions? and why?

Another easy one this week – at least in my opinion.

Yes. Without any doubt whatsoever. Do you realize that if you say that no religious leaders should participate in government, then you deny the very existence of the United States? Most of the leaders of the militias from colonial times were church leaders. Church bells called the patriots to arms – anyone remember the Old North Church tower?

Freedom and religion are not exclusive of one another – unless it is a repressive religion like the Muslim religion. Christianity supports freedom entirely. Christianity is based on the idea that you have free will and you should do the right thing.

With some exceptions, what religious Christian leaders do you know that dispense bad advice regarding society? If you say that no religious principles should influence politics, you’re telling the vast majority of this country that they should not participate in self-government.

I know the ACLU and others, and I imagine some of my good readers, are trying to do all they can to remove all vestiges of religion from government. They, and you, are wrong. If you say that religious opinions do not matter in government, then you are proclaiming that you and your opinions are superior to the majority of Americans. They are not, sorry.

This is not a call for a theocracy – in fact I know of very, very few people who are calling for such a thing, and NONE of them are anywhere any actual elected positions, much less any real power. This is simply saying that you cannot disqualify someone for political office or government decisions because they are Christians.

More religious leaders should come out of their shells and help the majority of Americans in opposing the cleansing of religion from politics.

Posted by: Ogre at 08:48 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Drug Courts

Yet another NC newspaper is whining about the lack of spending on behalf of the North Carolina Senate, despite them raising taxes on everything including the kitchen sink (and even creating a brand-new sales tax on the labor of the installation of kitchen sinks).

In this case, they are complaining about a $1 million appropriation that will cut funding for directors of state drug courts. I have searched, but actual budgetary figures are notoriously hard to find on the internet. Therefore, I cannot tell if this is an actual reduction of $1 million, or, much more likely, a reduction in an expected increase of $1 million, with a real increase in spending.

The newspaper also complains this $1 million reduction will result in only enough money to "employ 2 state drug court directors." So it sounds like there's no change in the actual "drug courts," but instead there will simply be less overhead to the drug courts. But, of course, it's for the children.

The newspaper even complains that the cuts are affecting drug courts, forcing Forsyth's court to stop taking new application A MONTH AGO. I guess their director was psychic and knew the Senate was going to make the reduction.

Folks, we've lost the "war on drugs." Give it up. Stop wasting money on it. Spend money punishing real crimes, real actions, and not just intentions. If someone doesn't pose an imminent threat and danger, leave them alone, would you?

Posted by: Ogre at 06:01 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Thankfully, I am no longer paying North Carolina State taxes. I don't make a tremendous amount of money, but I actually owed the state money this year (ridiculous, because I paid them almost half of what I paid in Federal Taxes throughout the year).

Posted by: michael at June 13, 2005 07:27 AM (eqaaP)

2 While I was in the military, I alternated between being a resident of New Hampshire and Florida. And no, it's no coincidence that there's no state taxes in either of those states.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 07:31 AM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 12, 2005

Marriage and Divorce

Divorce is wrong. Everyone should know that. Why is it so common in today's society? It's wrong. Period. God, who created marriage, said it's wrong, what more do you need? Jesus said it was wrong, but went even further -- saying that even lust is wrong.

I don't care what you see in America today. I don't care what you've been told, what your parents did, or what you'd like to see. You should refrain from physical adultery or sex outside of marriage. Period. We are not to commit adultery in our minds by lusting after another person. In addition, we should not cause anyone else to commit adultery.

I remember once seeing in a movie set in the 1500s where there was a clear situation in which a man and woman were not meant for one another, where they didn't like one another, but they had been married. It was shown where the woman and another man were very much in love. They proved to the Queen that they were not meant for one another. They asked the Queen for a divorce. Then queen replied, "What God has joined together, man must not separate."

It really is that simple.

Tips for males:
When you look at a woman, look at her face.
If you find yourself thinking impure thoughts, think of something else.
Do not be discouraged by problems and maritial difficulties.
Build a relationship based on love and respect.
Recognize that no one person can meet all of your needs; only God can and He will.

Tips for females:
Dress in a way that invites people to look at your face, not your body.
Reject the cultural pressures to be defined by how you look.
Consciously make the decision not to flirt or fantasize.
Build a relationship that encourages your husband and helps you to grow.
Recognize that no one person can meet all of your needs; only God can and He will.

Why not do what's right?

Posted by: Ogre at 07:48 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I think a good exception is abuse, Ogre. Nobody should have to tolerate abuse.

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 08:41 PM (z7nbM)

2 That's certainly a tough one -- and I think that's one that can be best avoided with prior planning.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 08:44 PM (i5VG6)

3 Great post Ogre. I would have to chime in with another excuse and that would be adultery.

Posted by: Two Dogs at June 12, 2005 09:17 PM (gxDJU)

4 Prior planning? As in, "I plan to blow his brains out when he beats me?" Just wonderin'...

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:27 PM (z7nbM)

5 And for the record, I would not divorce my husband over adultery and he knows it.

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:27 PM (z7nbM)

6 In prior planning, I was referring to PRE-marriage.

Adultery is the only legitimate reason for divorce. That's just one reason it should be so stringently avoided in all it's forms. Even those that cause others to commit adultery are as guilty as those who commit it themselves.

Posted by: Ogre at June 12, 2005 09:29 PM (i5VG6)

7 Wait. So beating your wife is not grounds for divorce, but infidelity is?

Posted by: Bou at June 12, 2005 09:57 PM (z7nbM)

8 This reminds me of why I do NOT belong to the Mennonite church. One day, a woman with her 3 children appeared before the church and it's elders. She had obviously been beaten badly. She announced to the church that because the beatings had gotten so bad and she was afraid for her children, she was filing for divorce. The Elders said they understood and were sorry but she was no longer welcome.

God did NOT mean for us to live with violence. There is no such thing as pre-planning for that. You do NOT know what is in the other persons heart.

Posted by: Tammi at June 12, 2005 10:13 PM (F4oo1)

9 My first husband beat the crap out of me. He never touched me until I was about to give bith to our first son. He never showed violent tendencies at all in any situation. There are times when prior planning isn't a realistic expectation. I divorced him when my oldest son was 3.

My only regret is not doing it 3 years earlier.

If God wants to send me to hell for it, so be it - but I wasn't living my life never knowing when he was going to turn on me or my kids.

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 12, 2005 11:11 PM (0Ea9a)

10 Erin's case isn't unique. Doemstic violence advocates will tell you that about half of abusers (both men and women) show no signs of violence before the abuse starts and many don't have an abusive background. In these cases, a trigger event, like the impending birth of a child, loss of a job, increased alcohol or drug consumption, etc. can set off the abuse, and there's no way to predict it.

Sure, I get it. Get to know the person you plan to marry. Understand where they're coming from, and what they want from life. If you know they're bad, don't do it. That's great. Everyone should do that. But that doesn't work for everything.

Abuse should never be tolerated.

Posted by: caltechgirl at June 13, 2005 12:46 AM (UNuTU)

11 I'm not saying that one should put up with abuse. But divorce is a sin. No matter why, it is.

It's no worse a sin than any other sin, so it's not like you're branded for life (if you believe in Jesus and know that he died for our sins so that we can be forgiven).

I'm not The One who will sit in judgement. But I know that anyone who has sinned needs only ask for forgiveness in their heart for that sin, and they will be forgiven. It's as simple as that.

I also honestly believe that we are never given more than we can handle. I'm saying that if you are considering divorce, perhaps there's another option. Perhaps you can pray for the person you're considering divorcing and yourself. Perhaps you and they can seek a little healing power and there's an option other than divorce.

I'll pray for you if you'd like me to.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 06:07 AM (i5VG6)

12 I believe if getting married wasn't so easy, then it would help slow down the divorce rate. I'm divorced yes, but been married to the CSM for going on 13 years now. However, I believe that if it harder to get married more people would think about it. Why not require a "cooling period" or make people go to classes before getting a license?

Posted by: Jo at June 13, 2005 07:47 AM (RV2fQ)

13 Sure, that would help out -- but then you've got Las Vegas...

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 07:50 AM (/k+l4)

14 Practically off-topic at this point, but for both sexes: never let your spouse walk out the door without a kiss and an "I love you".

Because you never know if you'll get the chance again...

Posted by: Harvey at June 13, 2005 09:12 AM (ubhj8)

15 Most certainly good advice, Harvey, if slightly depressing...guess that goes with the one about never going to be angry, eh?

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)

16 Just to be hypothetical and argumentative

The bible says "what God hath joined together, let no man put asunder" right? Anyone can marry anyone anymore, a marriage is no longer necessarily ordained by God. Sometimes, it's ordained by Elvis, and in my case, I'm completely convinced it was ordained by the god of ignorance and stupidity.

Now I'm not trying to say that divorce is or isn't a sin, but I do believe there are marriages out there that are not ordained by God.

And just as an aside question, if divorce is a sin, and a woman divorces her husband for abuse - is the abuse also a sin?

And furthermore, to repent is to pray and say that one is sorry for the sin they committed - I doubt women getting out of abusive situations for themselves or their children are sorry for doing so. I'm sorry I married him, I'll never be sorry for divorcing him. Does that mean that I'm -by the religious standards you've presented me- doomed to hell?

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 13, 2005 11:05 AM (0Ea9a)

17 Argumentative? Here? What, do you think this is a blog or something? Oh wait. It is. Right.

Sure, there can be marriages that are not ordained by God -- but if it's a man and woman who believe it is at that time, then it is.

And certainly, the abuse is a sin. That goes without saying.

And I'm no priest, but since you're saying you're sorry for marrying him, I think that would somewhat apply as asking for forgiveness, but I'm not sure.

This will probably anger you, but hopefully will not when I say that perhaps it would be best if you were sorry that things could not be worked out between you two and that the abuse would have stopped. Wouldn't that have been better than the divorce? I'm not saying a little change, but imagine if he suddenly went back to the way he was before you married him?

The point of this thread was never to say that someone should stay in an abusive relationship. I'm just trying to say that leaving a marriage because "things are tough" is wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 11:12 AM (/k+l4)

18 Ogre please take the time to read this website carefully:

http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Religion/religion.htm

One of the links is RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: GUIDELINES FOR PASTORS.

http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Religion/guidelines.htm

Some of the guidelines:
DO encourage her to think about a safety plan: set aside some money; copies of important papers for her and children; a change of clothes hidden or in care of a friend if she decides to go to a shelter. Plan how to exit the house the next time the abuser is violent. Plan what to do about the children if they are at school; if they are asleep, etc. (This is both practical and helps her stay in touch with the reality of the abuser’s violence. Safety planning is a process that is ongoing.)

DON’T encourage her to forgive him and take him back.

And there are biblical references as to why this is correct. Please take the time to go through this site.

Posted by: VW Bug at June 13, 2005 01:08 PM (n+JjT)

19 That is why I think counseling before marriage should be manditory.

To be married in a Catholic Church you have to go to marriage prep classes. 8 weeks of classes that talked about everything you could think of, yes even sex. They gave us a lot to talk about and they expected that you do the assignments that you were given. We did and learned a lot about each other before we were married.

After the classes you took a compatability test and discussed those results with a marriage counselor.

Then you met and talked with a married couple from the church.

Then the priest took all that information and made a decision as to whether everyone thought you were compatable and should get married. If it was yes then you could get married in the church. If it was no they would discuss it with you, offer to hold off on the marriage and help with more cousling to see if maybe you could work out some issues, if the couple wouldn't go to more counsling the church would not marry them at any time.

Plus the Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, so once married in the church you are married forever unless one spouse dies. You can never get married in the Catholic Church again unless an annullment is granted (which doesn't happen very often).

Posted by: Machelle at June 13, 2005 01:17 PM (ZAyoW)

20 Machelle... I know plenty of women who have been in physically abusive relationships that were married in the Catholic church and they went through all that counseling stuff.

Read what Caltechgirl said above. There are triggers that can cause domestic abuse.

Posted by: Bou at June 13, 2005 01:26 PM (z7nbM)

21 I didn't really think this would turn into a thread that showed me as supporting domestic violence. I guess I imagined that some would turn it around on me, but that is what it is.

Look, I'm not supporting domestic violence.

Divorce is wrong.

That's not my words. It doesn't really matter if you like it, it's true. Divorce is wrong. I'm not saying you should stay in a situation where you're being abused. But divorce is still wrong.

As for the advice that you've pointed to, VW, I do have major problems with that. We are told, over and over again, to forgive people. We are told that we are not to judge them, but that God will judge them. I cannot imagine any Christian pastor honestly saying, "No, don't forgive him." Ever.

If my pastor ever said that, he wouldn't be my pastor any more, because that's wrong, too.

So yes, go with all the help, counseling, and meetings before you get married to AVOID divorce.

I don't support wife-beating, but divorce is STILL wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 01:54 PM (/k+l4)

22 But you know Bou, those abusive situations are not what I am talking about.

I am talking about people getting married knowing that if things don't work out they can just get a divorce.

Way to many people today are just getting married to get married. To have the big fairytale wedding, etc, etc, etc. They don't think about the after, just the here and now.

A lot of people don't know the difference between real love and "I think it's love". There is a big difference.

Like Ogre is saying, to many people jump before thinking about what's on the other side of the hill. A lot people just don't think it's going to require hard work to keep a marriage going, and when hard work is called for they just run to the court and get divorced.

Make it harder to get divorced. Make people go to counsling before a divorce to see if all they need is some help getting through the problems.

I know a lot of people who got divorced because one wanted kids and the other didn't. That is something that should be discussed before even getting married. That's just stupid to go into a marriage not knowing the person well enough to not even know they don't want kids.

Posted by: Machelle at June 13, 2005 02:45 PM (ZAyoW)

23 lol Ogre, I didn't mean to be any part of making you look like a wife-beater-sympathizer. Sorry.

Would I have rather that everything 'got better' and not gone through the divorce and subsequent 'stuff'? Of course. We have children together that have suffered, as kids of divorced parents do.

Do I believe frivolous divorce is wrong? Absolutely, and I'm not even vaguely religious. If a couple has made a committment to one another it should be honored, and I believe frivolous marriage is just as wrong.

Do I believe that women will stay in abusive marriage, at her own risk, and the risk of her children, for the sake of pleasing her pastor or her lord? Unfortunately, yes, I do.

I guess I feel that God wouldn't want women or children to suffer at the hands of a husband who obviously isn't honoring the scriptural obligations of a husband, honor thy husband as he honors the lord... that's all I'm saying, you know? I don't think the lord would continue to ordain an abusive marriage, no matter the situation at the time of the wedding.

And no people, Ogre doesn't think women deserve to be beaten - poor guy!

Posted by: Erin Monahan at June 13, 2005 02:51 PM (0Ea9a)

24 I think we're finally in a little more agreement, especially to the main point of the post: If you are someone who is considering a divorce because "the spark died," or "it's too hard," please reconsider.

Thanks for the lively conversation and the many, many emails. I had no idea this topic would get so many people going so much. Really! Now why won't you people get this upset about taxes!?!

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 03:47 PM (/k+l4)

25 I completely agree with the gist of your post... that divorce is too easy and I NEVER said I didn't. If you look at my first comment, I was saying that I felt that abuse was an exception to the rule. In my world, infidelity isn't even an exception when there are children involved.

My only issue has been that you 'seemed' to think it wrong for a woman to get divorced should she be a victim of abuse. And I... Just... Don't. And I don't think it's a sin either and I dont' care what scripture you quote.

So... it is just a place you and I will always disagree. If I ever find out a friend of mine is being abused, I will always tell her to get the hell out right then and there and to never look back. I will not counsel her to pray about it or get counseling or try to stick it out to see if it works out in the end. NEVER.

But, that is me.

Posted by: Bou at June 13, 2005 04:24 PM (z7nbM)

26 You never know how much people can change. I've been known, far in my past, to help such people as are being referred to here change their views on things. And I can imagine being put into a situation where I could be asked to help with that sort of thing again. And I do know that sometimes people (especially abusers) don't listen to reason. And I know what they do listen to.

So yes, we'll disagree. Even in an abusive situation, I think divorce is a last resort. Sure, get away from the situation, take the kids away, physically remove yourself from the abuse, but then see if there's not a way to work things out. Always try.

Posted by: Ogre at June 13, 2005 04:48 PM (i5VG6)

27 I doubt that I could stay in my marriage in the case of adultery or abuse. Other than that, I completely agree with you Ogre. I am still a little green with the marriage thing since my 1st anniversary isn't until August-but, I put 6 years into the relationship before we took that leap. Both of my parents are on their 3rd marriage and I knew that I didn't want that for myself.

I guess we more or less follow the tips you put up at the end of the post-but I think it is bigger than that. I have seen the pain my Mom went through (and my Dads too) and I chose to put more effort into choosing my spouse than any of them did. So far, my relationship hasn't taken much effort-just infinite patience and an ability to let stuff go.

Posted by: Ashley at June 13, 2005 11:50 PM (g7rdQ)

28 That's great to hear, Ashley, I truly wish you the best and many, many years of happiness in your marriage!

Posted by: Ogre at June 14, 2005 05:11 AM (i5VG6)

29 Thank you and same to you

Posted by: Ashley at June 14, 2005 02:50 PM (jWyC5)

30 Take your time to check some relevant pages dedicated to gambling gambling http://www.blevensdamman.com/gambling.html http://www.blevensdamman.com/gambling.html
blackjack blackjack http://www.blevensdamman.com/blackjack.html http://www.blevensdamman.com/blackjack.html
roulette roulette http://www.blevensdamman.com/roulette.html http://www.blevensdamman.com/roulette.html
free slots free slots http://www.blevensdamman.com/free-slots.html http://www.blevensdamman.com/free-slots.html
...

Posted by: blackjack at August 18, 2005 01:43 AM (kc7a6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

New Neighbor #18

Once again, for your Sunday reading pleasure, a new neighbor. This week it is

Double Toothpicks

This is a group blog that didn't start out as a group blog, but it is one now. The blog started to answer the burning question, "Are we going to H-E-double toothpicks in a handbasket?" The blog's primary author, Steve, says that

some mission creep has happened, but probably the most descriptive phrase for the blog is our catchphrase: "Worldviews BEHIND The News." What the Mainstream Media often doesn't tell you is the worldviews of the players involved. You'll get that here, and hopefully a lot more.

There's a great about page that tells you what the purpose of the blog is and gives good quotes from the authors to really give you an idea of what you're reading there.

The blog appears to be updated multiple times daily, especially during the weekdays. There's lots of news about news there, like the recent post talking about the press in the Michael Jackson case and Dean and Christianity.

There's plenty more good stuff there. The archives go back to May 2004 -- and the second post of all time is a powerful post showing how society tries to equate politics to morality. You should go read now.

Posted by: Ogre at 11:21 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.1329 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.1233 seconds, 105 records returned.
Page size 85 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.