The Wacky World Views of TJ Shelby

Dangers of Bad Parenting...er...Social Media

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sun, 16 Aug 2015 19:46:00 +0000

I finally got around to watching the viral YouTube video by Coby Persin titled "The Dangers of Social Media (Child Predator Social Experiment)."

Needless to say, I was appalled. However, probably not for the reason you'd think.

The premise is that Persin, after securing consent from the parents, attempts to chat up underage girls while telling them he is a 15 year old boy via his fake Facebook account. After a few days of communication, he convinces them to meet him in person. Persin brings along their parents for the "gotcha" moment.

To me, the real failures here undeniably lie with the parents.

First, the obvious lack of relationship these girls have with their parents. The first two explicitly state that their dad's have to be out of the picture for this to occur. And judging by the reactions of the parents to the mistakes made by their daughters, I can see why they are afraid of talking to their parents about things like this.

Secondly, the biggest failure to me, is how they follow up on the "gotcha" moment. It turns into the parents angrily berating the teenagers in rage-induced shame sessions for their failure in not being wary enough of STRANGER DANGER. Don't get me wrong. I'm all about open and frank discussions with children and teens about the dangers of social media, online/real-life predators and internet safety in general. But I echo the thoughts of Lenore Skenazy, author of Free Range Kids, who wrote about this video:

"(The Dangers of Social Media) reinforces the idea that every child is in constant danger from strangers, and that's not the case. I think it's worthwhile to have a conversation with your kids and tell them that they can talk to anyone, but they cannot go off with anyone. I'm not saying that this never happens, but what disturbs me about our culture is that we are encouraged to think in terms of the worst-case scenario in every situation."

The real danger of these videos is that we are falsely teaching our children that they are in constant danger of being abducted by unknown predators and that such occurrences are commonplace. The sad truth is, the overwhelming majority of crimes against children are committed by people they already know.

After watching this, I think the one lesson these teens learned most of all is not to trust their parents. I guess the viral video will probably help these girls explain to their future psychologists why they are seeking counseling.

SSM: Lesson One - Animals

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sat, 27 Jun 2015 16:56:00 +0000

Dear dum-dums, animals are not categorized as American citizens. Therefore, they do not have Constitutional rights. So NO, the SCOTUS ruling yesterday does not open the door for people who love their pets to marry them. #lesson1 #morelessonscoming

Mormons Love Apostasy

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 00:56:00 +0000

Apostasy. One of the worst things that a person can do in most religions. LDS Prophet, Brigham Young, once said: "I would say, let [apostates] alone severely. The man who will apostatize from the truth, forsake his God and his religion, is a traitor to everything there is in heaven, earth, and hell. There is no soundness, goodness, truth, or virtue in him; nothing but darkness and corruption, and down to hell he will go. This may grate on the delicate ears of some, and they may think it is a pretty hard sentence, still it is true (JOD 12:58)."

Set all of that harshness aside because, let's not deceive ourselves, Mormons love apostasy. The LDS church has added about 300,000 apostates to their membership rolls per year since the mid-1990's. They love apostates so much, the corporation instituted a policy change to add more spiritual soldiers into their conversion army so that they can add more apostates to their fold. Obviously, the only apostates they do not seem to appreciate are those who agitate, or leave, the herd.

In Islam, apostasy is generally recognized as the conscious abandonment of Islam (by a Muslim) in word or through deed. My apostasy of blogging occurred in 2011. Blogging for me was an outlet of therapy to vent my growing frustrations at the religion I was a part of at the time with an extremely limited audience. That online audience surprisingly grew from non-existence to a humbly small following and became problematic to my attempt at remaining a doubting but faithful Latter-day Saint.

My blog became the journalistic avenue that documented a small portion of my doubts which eventually led to my apostasy from Mormonism. I voluntarily resigned from the LDS church on July 4th, 2011.

In the midst of that journey, my brother-in-law shared a post with me from another blogger entitled: "Too Bad I Don't Like Beer." A few days later, I re-posted the content in it's entirety and actually got commentary from the author. We corresponded. Turns out, he knew my mom from somewhere down the historical yellow brick road.

That man was Alan Rock Waterman. He was excommunicated for apostasy on June 3rd, 2015.

“What sins am I guilty of?”

“Apostasy.”

“No, apostasy is your judgment. What sins have I committed to make up this judgment?”

“Apostasy is the sin.”

I have watched and witnessed as a growing number of Mormon dissenters have been excommunicated for a variety of apostasy-related issues. And while those situations have brought a variety of angst-ridden emotions, this latest with Rock has been like hitting a gong that reverberated into my core.

As Rock was being told his verdict, that he was being excommunicated for apostasy, he asked the Stake President for the definition of apostasy. The stake president responded with the following, as defined by the LDS Church Handbook of Instructions: “Persist in teaching as Church doctrine information that is not Church doctrine after they have been corrected by their bishop or higher authority.”

To which Rock replied that in the one meeting he had with his bishop and the one with the stake president (which is a pretty loose definition of “frequent”), that he begged them for correction. “If there is something in there that you would correct, that you found undoctrinal, then I’d change it, I’d make the corrections.”

However, as is the case with most modern accusations of labeling and excommunications for apostasy, doctrinal truth is irrelevant. Obedient compliance is always at the heart of the issue.

I recognized in Rock a similarity in his dissent that I had felt and experienced in mine. He just wanted someone to explain to him why he was wrong in terms that were not blatantly false, utterly hypocritical, ridiculously contradictory or able to be dispelled by the logic of an elementary school student. As I did years ago.

My position was, as is Rock’s, that we echoed the words of the Book of Mormon character, Nephi: “I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath redeemed my soul from hell…For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.”

I do not believe Rock had any fantastic notion that he was leaving that meeting with his LDS membership in place. I think he knew that the outcome was predetermined and that nothing about this court of love was intended to save his soul, protect the innocent or safeguard the purity of the LDS Church. This was about protecting the brand and retaining a customer base from honest dialogue.

Nothing he could share would convince those present that he was a believer. This is where Rock's story differs from my own. I do not believe the foundational claims of Mormonism. Rock still does. Even after his excommunication, he believes that God exists, Jesus is the Christ and Savior of the world, Joseph Smith was/is a prophet and that the Book of Mormon was divinely inspired and the word of God.

Why then was he excommunicated? Here’s something I’ve seen repeated in enough jurisdictions that I can call it a distinguishable dogmatic trait of modern Mormonism. When local LDS leaders lose their debates on doctrinal issues, the default fall-back accusatory question is always, "Do you sustain the leaders as Prophets, Seers and Revelators? Do you believe that ______ is the current Prophet of the Lord?"

However, my reply to that has always been, "How do we as members discern between when a prophet speaks as a Prophet and when he speaks as a man?"

History has proven that the only reliable way has been to wait and see. If they were right, he spoke prophetically. If he was wrong (which has been more often the case), the response from leadership is that the Prophets, Seers and Revelators are still just fallible humans who are prone to make mistakes.

It was Rock’s response to that question, however, that got him into trouble. “Certainly we should be willing to pay heed to the prophet of God when he is relaying a message directly from God. That is, after all, what a prophet is for. But when was the last time you remember that ever taking place? Where are the revelations?”

Later on the same topic he added: "The minute that Thomas Monson gets upon the stand and says, 'I have a message from the Lord that he wishes me to convey to you', I'll perk right up. I'll be listening. That's what I'm waiting for. But I haven't seen that happen. Stories and counsel and interesting stories about losing five dollars in your pair of pants and sending it to the laundry and when the pants come back that five dollars is still there because he prayed so hard for it; those are nice stories but they're not what we expect from a Prophet, Seer and Revelator. So if I'm to sustain men as prophets, seers and revelators, I'd expect to see a little bit of evidence that they have those gifts. Joseph Smith had that gift. Nobody today seems to follow in his footsteps although they claim the exact same authority."

While I do not fault anyone for leaving Mormonism (or any religion) on the terms they choose, I believe many of those who have been excommunicated recently from the LDS Church had already walked away from some of the core foundational beliefs of Mormonism. They chose to force the organization to expel them. I chose to voluntarily exit. Rock still believes in Mormonism and was unceremoniously removed from the corporation.

He was told that his membership had been revoked, his inquisitive inquiries into doctrinal matters remained unanswered and his eternal reward (as per LDS definition) was now forfeited...all in less time than I took to watch the latest Avengers movie.

For that, I empathize with his emotional journey.

Excommunicating someone for apostasy, or labeling someone an apostate, is rarely about the truth. It is about protecting the corporation, the brand and the customer base. I stand with Rock and echo the prophetic words of Orwell: “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Peace be with you, Rock.

Obama and the Birthers

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 00:57:00 +0000

Obama released his birth certificate today. Whew. Now hopefully these Bigfoot conspiracy theorists turned political hounds can FINALLY shut up about this and the perpetual nonsense can FINALLY stop. Uh...maybe not. As I've been trolling message boards, blogs and Facebook eagerly looking for the opportunity to drop the smug "I told you so" whenever and wherever possible, imagine my surprise to see that this issue is FAR from over.

In fact, what should have ultimately stamped out the crazy only seems to have transformed it into Crazy 2.0. I really don't know how to respond when evidence is rejected simply because it doesn't confirm your position. That's like religion. Oh wait. We are dealing with the Religious Right here. Okay now it makes a little more sense. Well maybe "makes a little more sense" is the wrong way to phrase that...

Dostoyevsky once penned: “Man has such a predilection for systems and abstract deductions that he is ready to distort the truth intentionally, he is ready to deny the evidence of his senses only to justify his logic.”

See, that's what I meant by "makes a little more sense."

I frequently get accused of doing that which I call others out for, namely, pulling party line regardless of the situation. You know, like Republicans requiring a different standard of Obama (produce your Birth certificate, school records, "made in the usa" baby-binkie from his infancy, etc) than has been required of any President yet.

Although, I'll grant you that the GOP did thoroughly reject Romney for his Mormonism almost as bad as they did for Obama being a Muslim. Of course, the big difference there is that Romney actually is a Mormon...

Anyhow, to prove I'm not a party-liner, let me propose a scenario and how I would react.

Let's assume Sarah Palin wins the next election and becomes President (come on, take a hit from a bong if that's what it takes for you to take this imaginary journey with me) of the United States of America.

Let's also assume that the Democrats learn from the Republican's masterful political strategies and they embrace MSNBC as their official media propagandizing mechanism. The Dems, in conjunction with every MSNBC talk show host, begin a brutal smear campaign of President Palin, attacking her level of mental intelligence. They focus on questioning her intelligence for believing that the earth is 6,000 years old. Word leaks that a "Palin IQ Test" exists. Grass-roots organizations generate pressure for her to make public her IQ test score to prove her mental competency is above levels of those we generally consider "unaccountable for their actions."

The Palin administration ignores this based upon the idiocy of the issue at hand but these neanderthal grass-root patriotic Democrats just want answers. There is an easy solution. Just reveal the IQ test results. If there is nothing to hide why hasn't President Palin released the results? She becomes so bogged down with the insanity of the people she has been elected to govern that she finally just decides to release them. Issue over?

No, of course, not. The evil puppet-masters that are pulling her strings have obviously just had time to fake the test results to show that she shouldn't be wearing a helmet in her day-to-day activities.

I want you Birthers to know that this is EXACTLY how I think you come off to the normal people of the world. However, in the (hopefully) improbable case that this scenario actually comes to pass - Just know that I will be equally outspoken in her defense as I am with this ludicrous birther issue.

For Those Interested in Mormon History

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:29:00 +0000

This is the 1832 account of the First Vision written in Joseph Smith's own handwriting.

Handwriting: Frederick G. Williams & Joseph Smith Jr. (the story itself is in the handwriting of Joseph Smith Jr.) recorded between summer 1832 and November 1832. Spelling is from the original.

A History of the life of Joseph Smith Jr an account of his marvilous experience and of all the mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Chist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record and also an account of the rise of the church of Christ in the eve of time according as the Lord brought forth and established by his hand [firstly] he receiving the testamony from on high secondly the ministering of Angels thirdly the reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministring of Aangels to adminster the letter of the Gospel - the Law and commandments as they were given unto him - and the ordinencs, forthly a confirmation and reception of the high Priesthood after the holy order of the son of the living God power and ordinence from on high to preach the Gospel in the administration and demonstration of the spirit the Kees of the Kingdom of God confered upon him and the continuation of the blessings of God to him &c--------

I was born in the town of Charon in the [state] Of Vermont North America on the twenty third day of December A D 1805 of goodly Parents who spared no pains to instructing me in [the] christian religion at the age of about ten years my Father Joseph Smith Siegnior moved to Palmyra Ontario County in the State of New York and being in indigent circumstances were obliged to labour hard for the Support of a large Family having nine children and as it required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the Support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education Suffice it to Say I was mearly instructed in reading {and} writing and the ground [rules] of Arithmatic which constuted my whole literary acquirements. At about the age of twelve years my mind became seriously imprest with regard to the all importent concerns for the wellfare of my immortal Soul which led me to Searching the Scriptures believeing as I was taught, that they contained the word of God thus applying myself to them and my intimate acquaintance with those of differant denominations led me to marvel excedingly far I discovered that [they did not {adorn}] {instead} Of adorning their profession by a holy walk and Godly conversation agreeable to what I found contained in that Sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divions the wickeness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the {of the} minds of mankind my mind become excedingly distressed for I became convicted of my Sins and by Searching the Scriptures I found that {mand} [mankind] did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament and I felt to mourn for my own Sins and for the Sins of the world for I learned in the Scriptures that God was the same yesterday to day and forever that he was no respecter to persons for he was God for I looked upon the sun the glorious luminary of the earth and also the moon rolling in their magesty through the heavens and also the Stars Shining in their courses and the earth also upon which I stood and the beast of the field and the fowls of heaven and the fish of the waters and also man walking forth upon the face of the earth in magesty and in the Strength of beauty whose power and intiligence in governing the things which are so exceding great and marvilous even in the likeness of him who created {him} [them] and when I considered upon these things my heart exclaimed well hath the wise man Said {the} [it is a] fool [that] Saith in his heart there is no God my heart exclained all all these bear testimony and bespeak an omnipotent and omnipreasant power a being who makith Laws and decreeeth and bindeth all things in theirbounds who filleth Eternity who was and is and will be fron all Eternity to Eternity and when I considered all these things andthat [that] being Seeketh such to worship him as worship him inspirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy forthere was none else to whom I could go and {to} obtain mercy andthe Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in [the] attitude of calling upon the Lord [in the 16th* year of my age] a pillar of {fire} lightabove the brightness of the Sun at noon day come down fromabove and rested upon me and I was filld with the Spirit of God and the [Lord] opened the heavens upon me and I Saw the Lord and he Spake unto me Saying Joseph [my son] thy Sins are forgiven thee. go thy [way] walk in my Statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life [behold] the world lieth in sin {and} at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the Gospel and keep not [my] commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me and mine anger is kindling against the inhabitants of the earth to visit them acording to this ungodliness and to bring to pass that which [hath] been spoken by the mouth of the prophets and Apostles behold and lo I come quickly as it written of me in the cloud [clothed] in the glory of my Father and my Soul was filled with love and for many days I could rejoice with great joy and the Lord was with me but could find none that would believe the hevenly vision. . . . Nevertheless I fell into transgression and sinned in many things which brought wound upon my Soul and there were many things which transpired that cannot be writen and my Fathers family have suffered many persecutions and afflictions.

*could be 15th year

Words enclosed by {} indicate deletion by cross out-- words enclosed by [] indicate insertion with ^ mark.

GOP Conservative FAIL

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 14:32:00 +0000

If you haven't heard the Right consistently bemoan how the Obama administration is spending astronomical figures (which I agree, they are) then you either don't pay attention to current events or...well, I don't have an "or" for you.

My issue with these elected "conservatives" is that they are knowingly hypocritical and don't seem to care about it. I have four theories:

1. They know their constituents aren't smart enough to recognize the hypocrisy
2. Their constituents share their hypocrisy
3. They know their constituents care about being on the winning team more than holding them accountable for their hypocrisy.
4. Being 1.6% better than Democrats is the lesser of two evils (You'll understand the 1.6% by the end of this).

We have seen signs like this for the last few years decrying Obama's budget proposals:

I'm not going to turn this into a "Who-Breaks-More-Promises" because it is plain as day that both sides do. I won't even argue about the "Spend to get out of debt" methodology. I have heard how Americans are sick and tired of the Obama administration's out of control spending. I have been told "American has spoken" regarding the Republican's regaining of the House. Now this shit will end and we will get America back on track.

While there is so much to rant about what they've done so far, I promise to stay on target. Our focus will be to evaluate and discuss how they have dealt with the proposed budget. I really just don't understand why red-blooded Americans cannot see that the elected Republicans just are NOT that different when it comes to fiscal conservatism. The evidence just doesn't support their assertions.

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, and defacto Republican tanned poster boy, issued the promise to his constituents and America that (insert dramatic music here) "The American people have directed us to cut spending. We will. And there’s no limit to the amount we’re willing to cut to help get our economy moving again. Let me be very clear about this: we are going to exceed our Pledge to America. We are going to cut $100 billion in discretionary spending next week. Write it down. $100 billion in discretionary spending. And we aren’t going to stop there."

Wow. Now, while $100 billion does sound like a lot, I want you to consider something. The Obama administration's proposed budget was roughly $3.8 trillion. I'm going to write it out because it's more dramatic to see the zeroes.

$3,800,000,000,000

What is the deficit you ask? Excellent question. It was forecast at $1.5 trillion but is expected to end around $1.6 trillion.

So, with the $2,200,000,000,000 that we have as revenue/cash flow, we then spend $1,600,000,000,000 more than we have. I wish my home budget could work with that math.

Now, the Republicans ran on the premise of (rightly) pointing out the illogical nature of this methodology and promising change. Sound familiar? So they won the elections, took office and have now promised that to solve this problem, they will reduce spending by $100 billion. They promised to reduce the proposed budget by 2.6%.

Then they failed.

These fiscal conservatives decrying Obama's socialism couldn't even cut out 2.6%. They initially came in a little over $30 billion but the outrage amongst many of their own party not wanting to fail the "Tea Party Movement" base of supporters caused them to get that number up to around $60 billion. Still 40% below Boehner's "Read my Lips" promise. This Republican plan still leaves a $1.54 trillion dollar deficit.

So here is my question:

How is 1.6% less than what the Kenyan Muslim Socialist destroyer of America proposed somehow good conservative Republicanism? Or is it just good old American political hypocrisy?

Obama, DOMA and the Constitution

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 02:49:00 +0000

There are so many different issues regarding the Obama Administration’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. And to be accurate, he has only instructed that cases pertinent to Section 3 of the Act will be subverted. "...the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

From the liberal butt-kissing support to the neo-con priestcraft, the misinformation has spread faster than wildfire. It would take volumes to address it all. I want to discuss one individual aspect, and just the one.

Does President Obama (or any past or future President) have an obligation to defend laws they believe to be unconstitutional?

On January 20th (and the 21st), President Obama recited the Presidential oath of office: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The President did NOT swear to support the Defense of Marriage Act. Even if I concede and give the former Congress the benefit of the doubt in stipulating that they upheld their Congressional oath by enacting DOMA, which between you and I, would be a lie. Nonetheless, let's hypothetically give them that benefit. The President is not oath-bound to defend or protect their decision.

This is not the first time, nor will it be the last when a President refuses to defend the constitutionality of a law or statute. His duty to uphold the Constitution supersedes his obligation to enforce federal statutes when the two come into conflict. Federal statutes are only legitimate if they are constitutional.

The Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches of our government each bears an independent responsibility to analyze the constitutionality of current and proposed laws. However, the Executive and Legislative branches are Constitutionally bound to obey Judicial decisions that address a statute but if the courts have not yet ruled on the issue, nothing prevents the President or Congress from making a considered independent judgment that the statute is nonetheless unconstitutional and acting accordingly.

In his role, if the President truly believes that DOMA is unconstitutional as he says, then he is at the very least duty-bound to defer prosecutions until the courts have had their say. However, the Obama Administration has made clear their position that they believe it to be unconstitutional, thus paving the way for a show down at the Supreme Court.

So to say that President Obama's actions are unconstitutional, or un-American, well the opposite couldn't be more true than on this issue as he attempts to "protect, preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Religious Texts and Modern Law

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 17:51:00 +0000

As it is no secret that I am vehemently opposed to any restrictive legislations that specifically target homosexuals, I have participated in numerous debates on the topic. One of the most obnoxious arguments has to be the appeal to the Bible as a source of defining authority. "We can't allow gays to marry because the Bible says it is a sin." Oh really?

Well if we're going to change our state constitutions to ensure a Biblically-approved legislation, let's look at some of the Biblical suggestions that we should write into our civil code.

Leviticus 20:13 says that if man lies with man it is abomination and they "shall surely be put to death..." Should we make that the law?

Leviticus 20:9 says that anyone who commits adultery should be put to death. Should we make that the law?

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 says that if a women is not a virgin on her wedding night, she's to be brought to her father's door and the men of the town are to stone her to death. Should we make that the law?

Leviticus 20:9 says that if I curse my mother or father I must be put to death. Should we make that a law?

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that if a couple has a disobedient, stubborn, gluttonous and drunk son...they can tell the town folk to stone him to death. Should that become a law?

Exodus 35:2 says if people work on the Sabbath they are to be put to death, should we make that the law?

Leviticus 25:44-45 tells us it's okay to make slaves of our surrounding nations peoples. Sounds like an easy fix to the whole illegal immigration issue...should we make that a law?

Of course, if the slaves get unruly...Exodus 21:20-21 says that if a man beats his slave and they die, he'll probably have to be punished but if they get up after a day or two, no punishment since the slaves are his property anyway.

If the slaves are still upset after the beating they barely survived, let them read the God's mandate in 1 Peter 2:18 that tells them to submit to their masters, regardless of if they are nice or harsh.

Of course, according to 1 Timothy 2:12 no woman should be so brazen as to be correcting my wayward apostate ways. This gem also applies to woman being supervisors, managers, or CEO's in the workplace.

If you truly believe we are a Christian nation, well...Deuteronomy 12:2-3 says we should go to all non-Christian places of worship and thoroughly destroy them out of existence.

Okay...let's be honest, if you read a few verses on, it actually tells us to kill anyone who has a different religions than yours.

On that note, what laws should we create on how to deal with those unruly youths if they make the dastardly mistake of calling a religious leader a..."baldhead" (gasp!)? 2 Kings 2:23-24 says that the leaders may feed them to hungry bears.

Leviticus 19:19 tells us not to wear clothes made of two types of fabric. Though, this one probably only warrants a misdemeanor fine.

Leviticus 19:27-28 says not to cut your hair nor shave or get tattoos, should me make those laws?

Leviticus 20:27 says that Psychics (among other things) are to be stoned to death. If we make this a law, the many major downtown city economies will take a dip...well, aside from the funeral and burial industry.

Leviticus 20:18 says that if a man has sex with a woman on her period, they are both to be "cut off from their people." Should we make this a law and create little internment camps for these folks?

Leviticus 21:9 says that if a priest's daughter is a whore, she is to be burnt at the stake. Should we make this a law?

Leviticus 23:14-16 says that anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. I wonder if we should use tax money to create a "Town Stoning Center?"

Deuteronomy 13:5 tells us that the First Amendment needs to be revised just slightly. If anyone uses their free speech to talk against God, or convince people away from God, they need to be put to death. Should we make that a law?

I could go on and on but I think you're getting the point. Mark Twain once said, ""The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." Before they go on writing anti-homosexual legislation, a topic Jesus of Nazareth NEVER spoke on, maybe they should focus on figuring out why their own God-approved marriages are failing half of the time...

Did Oaks Really Used to Sit on the Utah Supreme Court?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 15:54:00 +0000

I just read a disturbing article on the recent speaking engagement of Dallin H. Oaks at the Chapman University Law School. "We must never see the day when the public square is not open to religious ideas and religious persons," Elder Oaks said. Now if he would have just stopped there...I'd be okay. Well, sort of. As long as Oaks realizes that the public square is NOT like his Church in which opposing ideas are not subject to criticism. When religion is used as the motivating premise behind proposing, or establishing, legislation then the prosecution has opened the door for rebuttal questioning.

Unfortunately, Oaks did not just stop there. "The religious community must united to be sure we are not coerced or deterred into silence by the kinds of intimidation or threatening rhetoric that are being experienced." Really? Religious people are being forced into silence by intimidation and threatening rhetoric? Mr Oaks...your Church has led the charge in multiple states to create Constitutional amendments defining marriage as between "one man and one woman." 30 of the 50 states have created "separate but equal" legislation. And your whining over alleged "threatening rhetoric?"

Elder Oaks cited a number of religiously diverse examples and leaders in highlighting his four points on preserving religious freedom:

1. Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to a free society, thus "deserving of their special legal protection."
**My thoughts: Prove it. Prove that religious teachings and religious organization are important to a free society. I think morality exists outside of established tax-free corporations run by religious officers. We'd do fine without them.

2. Religious freedom "undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty."
**My thoughts: I absolutely agree but not if the reader assumes Oaks is saying that the United States was established as a Christian nation. I agree that one of the foremost reasons this country was established was to promote freedom, including the freedom of religion. However, the phrase "the dominating civil liberty" is a bit extreme considering it was the religious text of the early Christian founders that allowed slavery to exist for as long as it did. The phrase is also somewhat ironic coming from an "apostle" whose Church didn't promise the opportunity for exaltation to black members until 1978.

3. The constitutional guarantee of free exercise of religion "is weakening in its effects and in public esteem."
**My thoughts: Bullshit. I'd really like to hear how the opportunity for religious worship is suffering. Public esteem in religion is suffering because people are using their noodles. Public esteem in the constitutional rights of the free exercise of religion are not suffering, public esteem in the constitutional rights of tax-exempt status of religious organizations that use their influence to suppress constitutional rights of legal citizens is suffering.

4. Such a weakening can be attributed "to the ascendancy of moral relativism."
**My thoughts: "Meta-ethical relativism is the meta-ethical position that the truth or falsity of moral judgments is not objective. Justifications for moral judgments are not universal, but are instead relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of an individual or a group of people. The meta-ethical relativist might say "It's moral to me, because I believe it is." Hypocrisy again. It applies to others but not to me.

Oaks continues: "Religious individuals should insist on their constitutional right and duty to exercise their religion, to vote their consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates." Mr Oaks, individuals do have a constitutional right to exercise their religion. There is NO CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to exercise a religion. Individuals are allowed to vote their consciences on public issues and participate in elections and debates. However, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION that says religious thought must win those elections and debates, nor is your voicing your conscience in public forums protected from scrutiny.

"All who believe in that fundamental should unite more effectively to preserve and strengthen the freedom to advocate and practice our religious beliefs, whatever they are," he said. "We must walk together for a ways on the same path in order to secure our freedom to pursue our separate ways when that is necessary according to our own beliefs." **Great, do it. That is a Constitutional right. Maybe the former Utah Supreme Court justice is learning after all...eyeroll.

"I speak for a broader principle, nonpartisan and, in its own focused objective, ecumenical," he said. **Well, ecumenical unless you're someone that God tells us to legislate against...

Okay, you ready, because here is where I really get pissed at someone who either knows better or cheated his way onto the state Supreme Court.

"Along with many others, I see a serious threat to the freedom of religion in the current assertion of a 'civil right' of homosexuals to be free from religious preaching against their relationships. Religious leaders of various denominations affirm and preach that sexual relations should only occur between a man and a woman joined together in marriage. One would think that the preaching of such a doctrinal belief would be protected by the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion, to say nothing of the guarantee of free speech. However, we are beginning to see worldwide indications that this may not be so."

As a private religious organization, you have EVERY Constitutional right to continue your religious preaching against homosexual relationships. Why can't you just be honest and say that your feelings are hurt because of the backlash that church is receiving and that your PR department is working round the clock to try and save your asses.

Let's go a step further and say that your real concern is regarding your tax-exempt status as a religious organization. However, the crux behind that is the apparent inability of the LDS Church to accurately disclose to the IRS how much was actually donated to the YES on 8 cause. Well, I think your third submission might be close.

Oaks also took exception to the suggestion by President Barack Obama's head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that a "sexual-orientation liberty" could become such a right that it should prevail over a competing "religious-belief liberty."

"Such a radical assertion should not escape analysis," Elder Oaks said, because it condemns the notion of a centuries-old fundamental right of freedom of religion to becoming recast as a simple "liberty" ranked among many other liberties. It also would create sexual orientation as a fundamental right called "sexual liberty" and to the conclusion that religious expressions can be overridden by a fundamental right to "sexual liberty."

Hmmm....what is Oaks really saying? Okay, as a Church with tax-exempt status, a private organization, it is legal to discriminate any which way a bigot chooses. However, the for-profit corporations owned by the Church do not have such luxuries...hence, all of the for-profit corporations owned and operated by the Church (if same-sex couples can similar rights), would be forced to treat gays as equals under Constitutional protection. Can you imagine Deseret News had to offer domestic partner benefits?

"All of this shows an alarming trajectory of events pointing toward constraining the freedom of religious speech by forcing it to give way to the 'rights' of those offended by such speech," Elder Oaks said. "If that happens, we will have criminal prosecution of those whose religious doctrines or speech offend those whose public influence and political power establish them as an officially protected class."

This is probably the 2nd most inflammatory load of shit in his article. Homosexuals, and free-thinkers alike, are "offended by such speech." However, it is not the offended status of those listening to your constitutionally protected hate speech that causes gays to gain rights...it is the same Constitution that you as a state Supreme Court Justice swore an oath to uphold.

"I, Dallin H. Oaks, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Maybe you need to work on a constitutional amendment for Judges so that it can read "...administer justice without respect to persons...except for those we disagree with religiously..." For all of the talk about protecting the Constitution, without fail the Religious Right has done more to destroy and pervert the Constitution than all of the godless liberals.

Blog Cleansing...

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 06:39:00 +0000

If you've hit the one year mark since your last blog post, you've come off of my "Blogs That I Follow" listing. No offense and nothing personal...I've just given up on you.

How Can Americans Lose Weight? Onion News Exclusive...

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 06:28:00 +0000

Is There Hope For The US Deficit?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:13:00 +0000

My Favorite Songs of 2010

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:57:00 +0000

TOP SONGS OF 2010 (The first five were my absolute faves of the year, followed by some great tunes that came out this past year):

California Gurls - Katy Perry featuring Snoop Dogg

F*ck You - Cee Lo

King of Anything - Sara Bareilles

Not Afraid - Eminem

Waka Waka (This Time for Africa) - Shakira featuring Freshlyground

"Airplanes" - B.o.B. featuring Hayley Williams

"Animal" - Neon Trees

"Billionaire" - Travie McCoy featuring Bruno Mars

"Break Your Heart" - Taio Cruz featuring Ludacris

"Dyamite" - Taio Cruz

"Grenade" - Bruno Mars

"Just A Dream" - Nelly

"Just the Way You Are" - Bruno Mars

"Little Lion Man" - Mumford and Sons

"Love The Way You Lie" - Eminem featuring Rihanna

"Magic" - B.o.B. featuring Rivers Cuomo

"Misery" - Maroon 5

"Need You Now" - Lady Antebellum

"Nothin' On You" - B.o.B. featuring Bruno Mars

"Teenage Dream" - Katy Perry

"The Only Exception" - Paramore

"What's My Name?" - Rihanna featuring Drake

Going Guerilla guest post

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:00:00 +0000

I just did another guest post over at Going Guerilla.

Check it out!

Separation of Church and State?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 20:33:00 +0000

This is a taken from a Huffington Post article posted today. I just found it interesting and figured some of you would too.

The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) team put our heads together and came up with the following top religion and politics research findings in 2010. These issues are sure to follow us into the new year. Let us know in the comment stream what you would add to the list.

1. Nearly half (47 percent) of Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement also identify with the Christian right.

2. Pew found that nearly 1-in-5 (18 percent) Americans wrongly believe President Obama is a Muslim, and PRRI found a majority (51 percent) say his religious beliefs are different from their own.

3. Fifty-seven percent of Americans are opposed to allowing NY Muslims to build an Islamic center and mosque two blocks from ground zero, but 76 percent say they would support Muslims building a mosque in their local community if they followed the same regulations as other religious groups.

4. Americans are about five times more likely to give an "F" (24 percent) than an "A" (5 percent) to churches for their handling of homosexuality. Two-thirds see connections between messages coming from America's churches and higher rates of suicide among gay and lesbian youth.

5. Forty-five percent of Americans say the values of Islam are at odds with American values and way of life, while a plurality (49 percent) disagree.

6. If another vote similar to Proposition 8 were held now, a majority (51 percent) of Californians say they would vote to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

7. At least 7-in-10 Americans say that protecting the dignity of every person (82 percent), keeping families together (80 percent), and the Golden Rule are important values that should guide immigration reform (71 percent).

8. In his new book American Grace, Robert Putnam found that between one-third and one-half of all American marriages are interfaith marriages, and roughly one-third of Americans have switched religions at some point in their lives.

9. Despite high levels of religiosity, Pew found on average that Americans only answered about half of 32 questions correctly on their Religious Knowledge Survey.

10. The 2010 congressional election revealed relatively stable voting patterns by religion compared to past elections. GOP candidates held an advantage among white Christians, while Democratic candidates held an advantage among minority Christians and the unaffiliated.

And 11 for 2011. Nearly 6-in-10 Americans affirm American exceptionalism, that God has granted America a special role in human history. Those affirming this view are more likely to support military interventions and to say torture is sometimes justified.

Robert P. Jones, Ph.D., CEO and Founder of Public Religion Research Institute.

Books Read in 2010 and the 2011 Queue

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 04:03:00 +0000

In case you weren't aware, I like to read. In fact, come join Goodreads and we can be book pals. I tend to read a lot of comic collections (103 books so far) mixed with a few non-illustrated books peppered in. Here is my non-illustrated list for 2010:

1. The Measure of a Man - Sidney Poitier
2. The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide To Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book - Miguel Ruiz
3. Crooked Little Vein - Warren Ellis
4. Tuf Voyaging - George R.R. Martin
5. The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption - John Perkins
6. World's Most Evil Psychopaths: Horrifying True-Life Cases - John Marlowe
7. Deism: A Revolution in Religion - A Revolution in You - Bob Johnson
8. Peter Pan - J.M. Barrie
9. Flin's Destiny: Cobble Cavern - Jon Erik Olsen
10. A Game of Thrones - George R.R. Martin
11. Me Of Little Faith - Lewis Black
12. Live From Death Row - Mumia Abu-Jamal
13. The Time Machine - H.G. Wells
14. Enemies & Allies - Kevin J. Anderson
15. The Hunger Games - Suzanne Collins
16. Catching Fire - Suzanne Collins
17. The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - Robert Louis Stevenson
18. Mockingjay - Suzanne Collins
19. United We Stand: How We Can Take Back Our Country - Ross Perot
20. The Tales of Beedle the Bard - J.K. Rowling
21. The Silence of the Lambs - Thomas Harris
22. The Darwin Conspiracy - John Darnton
23. Twilight - Stephenie Meyer
24. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values - Sam Harris
25. New Moon - Stephenie Meyer
26. 1984 - George Orwell
27. Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality - Thomas Sowell
28. Speaker For The Dead - Orson Scott Card
29. The Old Man and The Sea - Ernest Hemingway
30. Eclipse - Stephenie Meyer
31. A Christmas Carol - Charles Dickens

I am still currently reading "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul" by Douglas Adams. I may finish one, or both, of those before the year ends.

That means my average is about 2-3 novels per month (not counting comic graphic novels). Here are 28 that are in my 2011 reading queue, in alphabetical order by title but I'm going to need a few more suggestions.

A Clash of Kings - George RR Martin
A Confederacy of Dunces – John Kennedy Toole
Animal Farm - George Orwell
Brave New World - Aldous Huxley
Breaking Dawn - Stephenie Meyer
Frankenstein series (4 books) - Dean Koontz
Gregor the Overlander - Suzanne Collins
His Dark Materials (3 books) - Phillip Pullman
Pathfinder - Orson Scott Card
Rich Dad, Poor Dad - Robert Kyosaki
The Assault on Reason - Al Gore
The End of Faith - Sam Harris
The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever (3 books) - Stephen R. Donaldson
The Foundation Trilogy (3 books) - Isaac Asimov
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
The Name of the Wind - Patrick Rothfuss
The Secret - Rhonda Byrne
The Stand - Stephen King
What's So Great About America - Dinesh D'Souza

So, what else should I read?

While I'm At Work, The Family Gets In The Christmas Spirit

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sat, 18 Dec 2010 18:23:00 +0000

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Is There Room At The Inn...for an Agnostic?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:11:00 +0000

Three years ago I wrote a post called “The What and Why of Christmas.” I reread it recently and realized some of my sentiments have changed. While I’m no longer the staunch advocate for Christianity that I once was, I still believe in many of the morals involved with the movement. I’m definitely not at the level of frustration Thomas Jefferson felt to utter, “I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.” I find myself leaning more towards the words of Gandhi when he said, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I’m not quite ready to embrace Ingersoll’s snide reminder to Christians that they don’t own Christmas. To me, Christmas is inextricably connected to Christianity, especially in America. I realize that if I just go back to my original post and read quickly my summarized history of Christmas, logically I can very easily dismiss that connection. However, since the connection still exists, it obviously goes deeper than logic. What is occasionally more powerful than logic and damn near impossible to control? Ah yes, emotion.

Even though I no longer attend church, I still have a number of spiritual experiences that I hold to as faith/hope defining. They are what cause me to ascribe to agnosticism over atheism. I still do not know how to deal with them in light of the separation between church and my state of being. At least two of those experiences directly relate to Christmas. The reality is that I’m emotionally/spiritually connected to Christmas.

I still get the warm fuzzies when I hear certain Christmas songs. Don’t get too excited about that or jump to identify the promptings of the Holy Spirit. I also had them the other night watching an episode of Dexter. There is nothing quite like a homicidal psychopath exhibiting the gentle, genuine love of a father love to his step-daughter to tug at my heartstrings and cause an introspective analysis on the evolving relationship with my own daughter. I almost shed a tear. Really…

Back on point, is Christmas exclusively for Christians? Or can an optimistic agnostic (that means “I don’t know but I hope so”) celebrate in the yuletide festivities too? I’m not asking for a Christ-less Christmas. I don’t want that nor is it realistic. I live in a state that makes Santa’s robe look pink by comparison. I just don’t belong to the “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” club any longer.

Is it enough to simply hope for something more, even if I can’t define it? I think my current position is best described by Albert Einstein: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”

Considering the evolution Christmas, and most particularly, the American celebration of Christmas, has experienced over the last few centuries, I don’t really see the need to have a defined position for now and going forward. If history teaches anything, it is that Christmas in America is not yet done evolving. John Burton Brimer once said, “America is a place where Jewish merchants sell Zen love beads to agnostics for Christmas.”

Ahhh, Consumerism. The true Scrooge of my Christmas nightmares. Bah! Humbug! Most of my Ebenezer-like attitudes of Christmas’ past have revolved around the perceived requirement of monetary gift-giving. Maybe that was because growing up, we had one pair of grandparents that clearly favored one set of grandkids over us but gave us the obligatory cash-in-a-card gift, while the other set of grandparents saw time spent with their grandkids as the Christmas present worth giving.

Anyone who knows me knows how loathe I would be to give credit to capitalism for much. ‘Cap’ has a huge ego so I try to feed into it as little as possible. So, imagine how humorous it is to me that the thing most Neo-Con Religious Right Republicans cling to as political scripture, free market capitalism, may be the very thing that they accuse liberals and their “War on Christmas” of trying to do but never accomplishing. Nothing has brought more disconnect between Christianity and Christmas than capitalism…but I digress.

Historically, Christmas has been a time of Christian reflection for me. Am I progressing towards Christ as a husband, father and man? How did I do in the previous year? In my quest for heaven, what about me stands in need improvement? Years ago, a past Mormon leader, Hugh B. Brown, once said, "For one day, at least, Christendom practices Christianity." I consider the attributes implied in Brown’s statement as humanist qualities, not specifically unique to Christianity alone. Christmas then becomes ‘for one day, at least, (when) humans practice humanity’.

Presently, Christmas stands as a reminder that when we, as fellow travelers of life, extend the familial hand of benevolence towards one another. Christmas is about an ever-evolving tradition made personal through symbols and emotion. Let us take Christmas and make it our own. If that means remembering the birth of Christ, embrace it. If it means being compassionate humans, do it. If it means simply celebrating the spirit of the season, which most religions coincide on in the basic principles of love, kindness, compassion, charity and peace for mankind, then please, if only for one time of the year, celebrate a truly wonderful tradition.

Merry Christmas from the optimistic agnostic to...whatever you are.

Why GOP hates big government...

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:29:00 +0000

Amen Cenk...

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:48:00 +0000

Can We Have Morality Without Religion?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 21:52:00 +0000

No Legitimate Argument...

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:09:00 +0000

Vote Republican by Roy Zimmerman

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:04:00 +0000

A History of Rap

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 19:51:00 +0000

Wanna Read Something Funny?

noreply@blogger.com (T.J. Shelby) — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 01:31:00 +0000

Come read my guest post over at Going Guerilla...

The post I wrote is entitled: "Am I Overreacting? Work, Bible and Obama..."