As It Is

I'm a wimp.  I'm not a wimp because of any sort of physical reason ... i'm bigger than most guys, i can lift heavy things, and do most of the things my non-wimp friends can do. 
I'm a wimp by choice.  I wear my seatbelt, i wear my helmet when on a motorcycle, a bike, in a construction area, or while attempting to snowboard.  I drive my car kind of fast, but not dangerously.

I've got a friend who is a health nut.  he tries to live the word of wisdom beyond what most do ... eats natural foods, very little meat, hardly any sugar, grinds his own bread, juices.  Like me, he used to smoke.  The thing that bothers me - and this isn't a judgement against him as much as a defense for myself - is that he rides his motorcycles fast and helmet-less.  He's got my kid convinced that helmets are unneccesary.  I try to teach my kid the importance of helmets, and my wife glares at me, as if i'm being too strict.

here's how my thinking is:

We are bound to observe any commandments we are aware of.  Our Father in Heaven is not going to judge harshly those who lived on some remote island somewhere and never learned all the commandments.  he's not going to judge some nice little old lady on the outskirts of town for drinking coffee if she never knew of the commandment not to.  that's just how it is ... He is a JUST God, and will judge us all JUSTLY.  In order for that justice to be perfect, however, He has to judge us according to the laws we are aware of.  If we're aware that we should not do ____ and ____ on the sabbath, we're judged when we break those commandments.  It's fair.  It's Just. :)

The "Word of Wisdom" tells us some things we should avoid - for our tempooral as well as spiritual well being - as well as some things we should partake of.  We know we shouldn't drink coffee or "strong drinks', that we shouldn't use tobacco for any reason at all, and that we should eat meat sparingly. we also know we should get a lot of sleep and eat grains. 

It doesn't tell us specifically that we shouldn't drink Coke or Red Bull or that fish is healthier than goat.  It doesn't tell us not to ride fast or live dangerously.

Still, by natural extension, we can determine that some things probably aren't good for us.  maybe there is some gray area because certain things aren't as harmful for one person as they are for another.  I know, for me, that caffeine is bad, and all stimulants are bad, and that i should only take medicine or supplements under a physician's counsel, and that i should do my best to avoid certain kinds of food as well as certain habit-forming activities.  I don't play video games, for example, and i don't go to clubs anymore. 

I am cautious.  I am not living in constant fear (despite the accusations made of me) ... but i learn ALL i can about the world, and some things are concerns for me.  I don't like to walk under construction cranes, for example.  i don't like to fly.  those things are not unique to me, they don't indicate i'm strange. 
Like i mentioned before, i wear appropriate safety equipment for the activity i am participating in.  Do i live in constant dread of getting a head injury? no.  Honestly, half the time i only wear my helmet because the kids are watching ... but i am conscious of it.  Years of being belted in while riding and driving in a car makes me notice when i haven;t snapped the seatbelt in place. is this a mark of obsessivbe-compulsive disorder/ no. it's just a good habit i developed. 

The motorcycle thing works like this for me:

If we are living righteously, God will protect us from physical harm unless he has something else in mind for us.  When it's our time to go, it's our time - nothing more needs to be discussed on that.
However ...
If we are commanded not to use alcohol, tobacco or caffeine ... and we're commanded not to get piercings or tattooes because our bodies are gifts from our creator ... some other things stand to reason:
- we probably shouldn't partake of other substances that affect our bodies in strange (unnatural, un-needed) ways or form habits.  Mushrooms, for example, or smoking weed.  Powders. none of those things are mentioned in the WoW, but they're most likely included in the "no" list. 
- if tattooes and piercings are bad, i'd imagine collagen implants or tummy-tucks are too.  and artificial or intentional tans, hair dyes, breast implants and some types of dental work.  yes, we should make the best of what we have, but does that mean we should change it or adorn it to satisfy some kind of worldly requirement for attention?
- if we're to take care of our bodies, what is the difference between lighting a cigarette or driving as fast as you can without a helmet?  both only satisfy some need of the flesh, both can be addictive to some people, both carry a potential for death.  when i'm driving fast in my car, i'm not doing it for a thrill ... i'm doing it so i can get to point B quickly, because i have much work to do while i am still on this earth.  i imagine, then, if i am doing my best to follow the laws, be safe, be engaged in a good cause ... i am probably under some sort of protection, because the Lord giveth no commandment save he also prepare a way for us to achieve that which he hath commanded ... (or whatever the right words are). If i were just driving around like a maniac because it is fun, i am engaged in no good cause, except for indulging in a thrill (a thing of the flesh), and if i own a helmet, and there is a law that i should be wearing a helmet, but i am not ... i am breaking a law of the land AND not doing my part to keep myself safe.  Will the Lord send angels to watch over me? i guess that's up to him, but i would suspect that if i am disobeying several commandments so i can go get a physical thrill, there are probably some natural consequences of my actions.

My friend is a good person.  he attends the temple more regularly than i, and he probably treats his wife and children better than i do.  like i said, this wasn't a judgement of him, but a justification or defense of me.  it hurts me when i'm teased (or, in the case of my wife, glared at) because i'm not as skilled at fruitless activities, breaking the law, or causing contention.  i don't need those things any more than i need immorality or hatred or ignorance.

nothing i do ... (or mostly nothing i do) is without purpose.  i try to ALWAYS be learning or creating.  the books i read give me very real knowledge.  they don't build 'creativity' because i don't need more of that.  i don't read fiction most of the time because i don't need to read a story of a character who does some everyday thing, or who does some extrodinary thing, or who does some fantastic and unreal thing.  while someone who was not in authority to speak such things "officially" once said something about learning from fiction, i see a likeness in something a general authority of the church said about joining fraternal organizations: why join some other organization to learn some man-made mysteries and pay dues when you could pay tithing and attend the temple to learn useful things pertaining to your eternal salvation?
i think the same goes for fiction.  all aspects of humanity that we NEED to know about are in the scriptures.  the scriptures put all aspects of humanity in their rightful place: sin is sin, faith is true faith, good is good, etc.  fiction, on the other hand, is "wisdom" made by man.  while some fiction can be inspired or inspiring, it's a little more thorny to wade around through the brambles of the man-made world trying to pick those few small fruits.  a more efficient way of living this mortal probation would be to avoid those things, and read instead the striptures and other writings that we know already are uplifting and inspired.  It is a waste of time to read 200 pages of a book that is filled with lies or half-truths or immorality, just to look for a few small grains of 'good", and you never know you'll be wasting that time until you finish the book.  While it is true that not all nonfiction is uplifting or 'good', or even true for that matter, it is less likely that a book on cooking or on hiking or on gardening or history is going to contain content as useful or damaging as most contemporary fiction. 

why bother with something that is likely to send you off track?

anyway, as i was saying, everything i do has some purpose.  it might be to further my knowledge on a particular subject, it might be to build a tradition for my children, it might be to teach a family member, or to make my living space more inviting for good to come in ...
but i have few enjoyments that are "just for fun", and i know that is what i need to do with my life. 

I've been depressed over the course of most of my marriage. It's not an overwhelming depression, but i just haven't been as happy as i was before i got married.
There are definitely a lot of benefits to marriage, and i am happy i have children. I'd thought for awhile that my depression was due to the gigantic struggles i've had in life since getting married ... moving, changing jobs, dealing with marital infidelity, deaths, financial stuggles, and once all of that was through, a surprise $42K tax bill ...

It's hard to describe the feeling to someone who hasn't experienced this. I love to compose music, but i've composed a single song in the 3 years i've been married. I sit down at the keyboard or pick up a guitar, and nothing comes out anymore. The harder i try to stretch my mind to unleash my creativity, the more the pressure inside my skull pushes my into dizziness, and often a fight against sleep.

I'm in school. School was always easy for me. I'm smart, i am creative ... i always did well in classes that weighted tests more heavily, because i forgot to do homework, but all material - ALL material - was a breeze.

Now, however, i frequently stare at a worksheet or passage in a book, and find myself struggling with all my might to make sense of the words crawling around on the page. More often than not, the mental tasks i get hung up on are those that i'd done a thousand times before, or used to be good at. It's as if the connections eroded away from non-use. The memory is all clogged and no longer accessible.

I sometimes wonder if i have some sort of disease in my brain ...

In highschool, and maybe even throughout most of my life, i was in a relationship with a girl who was my biggest fan. it seemed i could do no wrong ... i'd make a stupid song and she thought it was funny. i'd say something weird and instantly i was a genius, a guru. Significant other after significant other was this way. In a lot of ways, it was too easy. I accomplished a lot, though, and i had confidence.

A few bad relationships later, i didn't have as much confidence. I wasn't writing as much music. Some lifestyle changes forced a lot of things i excelled at into the "never again" category. I was no longer the "thin guy with crazy hair who smoked too much, was drunk half the time, and who you wouldn't want to be trapped in an elevator with - but boy is he fun at parties" guy ... i was a clean-cut, church going, non-drinker, non smoker.

I suspected for the longest time that my 'creativity' dried up because it was simply too reliant on "evil", and once i cut off the source, it could no longer thrive.

It hurts ... physically even ... to put so much effort into being able to concentrate long enough to complete my assignments. My hardest class right now, and last term, is Music theory - something i should be able to do in my sleep. I used to be good at it.

Last night it took me three hours to do one "problem" on a page of four. At school this morning, i worked with some friends, and got a better grasp of the subject involved, and during review received some praise from my instructor.

Instantly, my mind cleared up, and within moments i'd completed the assignment.

A "break through"? Not really. The tools i needed to understand the material were right in front of me all along, clear as day, but my self-doubt had cast a thick stupor of thought across my mind. it was her encouragement that turned my mind back on.

I left school in a great mood, and stopped to visit my wife at work.

I'm back under my cloud.

I'm not planning to divorce her or anything ...

she encouraged me once or twice. Most recently, she let me talk her out of paying someone else hundreds of dollars to build the website for work, and when i completed the website, she told me it looked "really professional".
That was encouragement, and it suddenly made me more confident in my web-building skills.

with my wife, though, there's always a "but". usually it's a verbal "but", like "you are really tall, but you need to eat healthier so you're not overweight" or "i agree with what you are saying, but you didn't need to say it the way you did because that doesn't make any sense".

with the web-thing, the "but" was strategy, and it hurt. We have a longstanding argument that essentially boils down to me being offended that she doesn't recognize my talents (how could she? she is too busy with everything else in the universe to bother with knowing me!), and regularly hires or threatens to hire other people to do things i can do (or used to do) fine.  I know a lot about computer hardware and electronics. I used to be an "IT guy" at three different jobs. her ex-husband writes script for whack-a-mole video games.  when she has a computer hardware problem, she used to call him first. now she pays someone $80 an hour to do it, because, she claims, i'm "too busy".

So after seeing her (real?) excitement over the website, i asked her how i should bill my time.  At our job, i do payroll and some technical stuff, a lot of running around, and some consulting on general things around the office, and send invoices.  None of these jobs are the work our clients are paying us for (because of the way she's set up the billing structure), so my work gets absorbed into the billing to the clients.  I'd assumed that she would either have me bill into the billing for the clients (since there's really not much difference between building a website or calling in the employee payroll), or bill directly to our business (since if the work isn't considered a part of my job, it should be considered a 'contractor' job, like paying the IT guy or the accountant), BUT (there's the but) she didn't think i should be paid anything for the work i did.

summary: "I love the website, BUT i'm not paying you for the hours you put in."

I have a lot of logical arguments against this:
- how can i ever expect to get other clients or have a 'real' business if i never get to bill anyone for the web design i did?  I've already done a butt-load of charity work - when can i make my first check?
- i tossed aside several hours that i should have been doing things that would actually "get me somewhere", like the 9 hours of my homework time i spent on the site on monday. 
- she was going to pay someone else to do the site. why am i suddenly "free" when i get paid to do work for the business anyway?
- it might seem weird that i get paid a regular check from a business i co-own with my wife, but she consideres herself the supreme unchallenged master owner, (she's actually our most productive employee - she works alongside the employees more than she manages anything) - and in most married relationships, the "primary breadwinner" (or "only breadwinner") might provide a little "allowance" to the other spouse ... a little "spending money".
Not in our relationship!  My wife eats out at expensive resaurants with co-workers and friends, buys whatever she feels like (which - don't get me wrong - is very little), but if i spend more than $100 out of the joint account a month, we land in marriage counseling because i have a "spending problem", which makes me "dishonest".  Solution, then?  I get paid a specific amount - just like other employees - for the specific time i spend working for our business.

um ... like making its freaking website?

logic aside, the real thing that hurts is that i don't think she would have been so enthusiastic about the website if she was expecting to pay.  i thought it was crap, personally, but i followed all the "pointers' her overpaid consultant suggested, and tried to make it as boring and sterile as possible to follow the unspoken guideline for that line of business' websites.

essentially, true to all expectations i have of her, i've received no encouragement. 

Encouraging people gives them confidence, and confidence is what makes inventions, good speeches, good politicians, famous 'thinkers', good songwriters and prolific writers and artists.  Encouragement is a form of "Nurturing". It helps people grow.  It is an expression of love. 

There are a lot of famous quotes ... the gist of which is "behind every great man is a woman". 
It's meant to belittle men, but it actually does the opposite.  Women, by nature, a nurturers.  Men, by nature, are workers.  It doesn't mean that a man can't nurture or a woman can't work, but these qualities are something biologically ingrained in our bodies and sould by the Creator.  Yes ... behind every great man is a woman. That doesn't mean that great men lean on the friendship and encouragement of females who try to act like men.  It doesn't really mean great men are only great because their mommies chased them around scolding them, and that their wives and girlfriends simply picked up the stick that mommy tossed down. Really, ALL great people had someone behind the scenes encouraging them. Most terrific failures did not. 

As of this moment, i know i am destined for failure.  All the talents God gave me are going to come with me at the end of my life as "ok", rather than "awesome" ... because i don't have encouragement. I encourage myself in my pursuits, and when i come home after a terrific victory, no one knows.  I don't ever get to have the euphoria that comes with success, because once "mission accomplished", i have to prepare for the let down of coming home to a grey life filled with obligations i haven't met. My cheering fans are screaming kids and the wife who is throwing them into my arms as i walk through the door, so she can take a bath and re-read a book about poor and neglected people on the far side of the globe.  It helps her understand what people who are neglected go through.  While she is behind the locked door, in the tub with her book, it helps me understand too.  

I have to be cautious in using the word "Encouragement" rather than "Support".  To some people, "support" is always tied to the word "financial" in the same way "encouragement" always has a grin.  My wife provides me some financial support.  I eat and have a roof over my head, and a corner of a bed to sleep on because of her.  If financial support means anything more than that, i really have no further examples.  I bought most of my music equipment before she and i met, and the few larger items i bought after we were married came from a small amount of cashed-out retirement savings that were left over after i handed the rest over so she could give birth to our daughter in a house in the countryside rather than a hospital.  Anything i've bought since then has come from my personal checking account, from money i received in a paycheck from work, for work that i did.

What is normal?

Some psychologists define abnormality based on the context of the behavior, and the context itself can be (and primarily is) "cultural", whether or not the behavior causes discomfort, how "unusual" a behavior is (certainly not an objective way of judging!), and whether or not the behavior falls within the established definition of an identifiable illness.

I think the lack of a solid, universal definition of the criteria for 'abnormal behavior' lends credence to the "new age' philosophy of "realities": the belief that every person lives within their own reality, and every person is capable of changing their own reality. It might not be as "magical" as it's usually presented - i strongly doubt, for instance, that a Hawaiian believing it's snowing is going to create a 'reality' of snow (and maybe that is a hindrance of my own 'reality' ... the inability to believe someone could be in such a deep sleep or so delusional), but i think it is well within the realm of possibility that a person who believes they are being persecuted can live that 'reality' to the point that their persecution becomes 'real' enough to affect other's realities, by cause of their actions and the reactions of those around them.

I like to believe i am, and have been told by others i am "creative". While in no means the best at anything i do, i do possess a very real talent for certain 'creative' areas that are beyond the average person. I enjoy listening to and creating music, i enjoy viewing and creating art (in many of its incarnations), I enjoy writing and reading. You can probably tell from my writing that i am not a very good writer. I sometimes spell words incorrectly, i use strange and incorrect grammar, and i'm particularly fond of not capitalizing my "i" and of using a lot of ellipsis. I am, however, better at grammar than most people i know, and better at spelling than most people i know, and though my content is rarely unique, to 'the average Joe' it seems it is.
I don't like to capitalize my "i" because it conveys a sense of personal superiority. Though in defending myself i try my best to take a firm stance and put on a good show, in day to day life i don't believe i am any better than anyone else. I like to use a lot of ellipsis because it visually conveys a pause better than a comma or dash. Ellipses seem more relaxed than a dash (which seems to be a frantic interruption). You will notice, however, that i break 'my rules' more often now. I try to vary my pause-punctuation, and capitalize my "i", at least when it is at the beginning of a sentence. This is because i'm attending school again, and in that institution, failure to comply with their "reality" is detrimental to my progress.

Do frequent ellipsis and the lower-case "i" make me abnormal? Contextually, that is, in the context of this particular writing, you'd be inclined to say "not at all". Do my professors consider me abnormal? I can tell by the amounts of red pen that vary dramatically from paper to paper that the professors who teach creative things (visual art, music, theater) probably don't put as much weight on this abnormality as those who don't teach creativity-based subjects (history, for example).

Visually, i don't like color, especially particular color. I can handle small amounts, but too much of the visual spectrum in one work feels schizophrenic or visually cluttered. I don't know if this is because of some particular style or artist i began to like at some point, or if it is an in-born trait, but it is how i have been as far back as i can remember. I remember consciously choosing to wear "black" because it didn't clash with things as readily, but i don't remember consciously deciding i didn't like clashes of color. As a result, most of the visual work i do has muted colors, or is almost like sepia.
An artist might call this my 'style'. Most others might call it "weird", and a few might consider it a pathological flaw. If i mention a time i went into a fabric store and saw a wall of colorful artificial flowers randomly affixed to the wall, and tell you how it made me dizzy and nauseous, you would probably lean more toward "pathological flaw", though that assessment might branch into two areas: is it a mental disorder or an eye disorder? An identifiable illness could account for either. Is the dizziness related to the artistic desire to not use color, or are they separate and merely coincidental?

What environmental factors might cause a man to face the impossibility of no “normal” reaction?

If in my marriage, I find my wife has been secretly going to each of our friends and respected elders, spreading untrue or biased and exaggerated stories about me, and that the behavior has been going on for months, what is the ‘normal’ way of dealing with the situation? If I were to pretend nothing is wrong and carry on as if things were normal, those ‘privy’ to the ‘scandal’ would view me as abnormal. The supposed strange actions of which I’d have been alleged would only give more credence to her stories in my ‘façade’.
If I were to act on the situation and run to and fro to every person I believed had been subject to the falsehoods, inevitably I would confront a person who had not been part of the coup, and at that moment I would have become “paranoid”.
What about the internal implications of such a meticulous betrayal? I would have to deal with several things, each an aspect of betrayal: first, the person with whom I should have the closest and most trusting bond has turned against me. If this were a parent-child relationship, the abuse would be of the most severe kind, because the person for whom the child should look for protection, love and nourishment has become the opposite. Though It may not have such a serious weight in a marriage, the sudden loss of the ‘reality’ of a happy (or ‘working on it) marriage, and instant isolation and inescapable audience surrounding the ‘bell jar’ within which you’ve become a prisoner is still severely damaging.

Secondly, the poison would have been extended to friends and ‘authority figures’ to which one might normally have turned for external support.

Third, with seemingly all parties in your ‘reality’ now being useless and perhaps hostile, you might turn to God. If representatives of your pathway to God seem to have ‘sided’ with your spouse, their authority is now called into question, which calls into question the body which they represent (the church) and the doctrines within. It would be a natural thing, then, for me to leave the church. While in non-religious society (culture) leaving the church is of no consequence, or is even applauded, to those adhering to its teachings, I would be ‘abnormal’, even ‘diseased’ with some malady of the soul.
The conundrum here being if I were to do so, I’ve ‘validated’ the false accusations that had been made against me.

Fourth, in making the choice to stay in the church, I have to already have, or arrive at, the conviction that the church is right, that God exists, that the structure is correct. This now begs the question: how could my church leader be deceived?

If one is devout, inevitably the Fifth question is posed: Was she right about all of those things?
At this point, desperate soul searching and frequent prayer are the behaviors. Outside church, this behavior would be considered incredibly abnormal, and within the church, possibly fanatical. Not wanting to mock or disappoint a very real God (in my ‘reality’), I would spend hours praying, reading scripture, searching the words of the living prophets, going back to my church leader, going through old journals searching for some unresolved sin that I could rid myself of. As each overturned rock turns up nothing, obsession becomes satisfied with the smallest of sins (“she was right that I am unworthy to enter the temple because I ate a 4oz coffee-flavored ice cream I accidentally bought with the other nine $1 ice creams!”), and now the poison has infected me, my hollow soul gutted and infested with the well crafted lies and brilliant stalemate my spouse ambushed me with two weeks before.

Somewhere in all of that is the step where I spent time seriously considering ending my life, but by supernatural means (belief in God, prayer, angelic assistance) was talked out of it. Suicide would be abnormal, but so is belief that God talked me out of it by small whisperings of angels directly to my soul. Which part of “not killing myself” makes me delusional?

Is it abnormal in this situation to believe “all our friends are looking at me different” when most of them really are? Some backed away: people we spent every evening and weekend with suddenly quit calling and don’t really have anything to say when we’re in the same room with them for an hour (through church or school). I came across emails and overheard conversations with others. I directly spoke with some involved and heard their ‘take’, or ‘what they heard’ from my wife. Am I paranoid because I know most of these people are looking down at me or away from me now?

Maybe I could deal with the situation by “realizing” that my wife is mentally ill, or myopic, or ‘led astray’. I could stand proud and condescending as I profess my love for her, state my forgiveness, try to relate to her ‘weakness’, and so forth, but wouldn’t this abnormality be considered “delusions of grandeur”?

“Normal” people would have resorted to some sort of ‘self-medication’ or ‘revenge’. By society’s standard, I should have bought some cigarettes or a couple bottles of Port. I should have ‘gone out with the guys’, paying women to undress in front of me. I should have moved in with a friend and ‘started seeing someone’. I should have sat in a bar and let my life story fall out of my mouth between sips of Guinness. There should have been some sort of withdrawal from the whole set of difficulties, and a renewal of some addiction: videogames, porn, drugs, violence, gambling, etc. Since I didn’t do these things, am I “bottling it up”, about to explode at any moment?

I chose to deal with my terrible, terrible hardship by writing more in my journal, playing with my children, doing my best to focus on school, and taking up meditation (including something with a strange little biofeedback gadget) to relieve the stress that is causing me physical problems. I confronted most of the parties involved, and asked them if they really felt I was doing something wrong. I signed us up for marriage counseling. These abnormalities may be a ‘false sense of hope’, or my own way of ‘avoiding my problems’ to some, but in my reality, I am doing the best that I can within the framework I know to be right.

I no longer trust my wife. The past two and a half years of our marriage have simply been an exercise in her proving I should never have any reason to trust her. I no longer trust most of my friends. I no longer take my ‘security’ for granted. I am prepared to leave. I don’t know if I can salvage enough of this relationship to ever feel any love toward her again. I have lost respect for several people. Others I don’t blame, and hope over time our relationship will mend. I don’t hate God. I don’t hate the church. I have no ill feelings toward my church leaders. I realize my wife is ‘damaged goods’. I’m sad that she will forever be selfish, rude, contentious, judgmental, confused, proud, manipulative, spiteful, unfaithful and dishonest, but I know I have done what I could to salvage this marriage.

I am not leaving her. She has already left me, if it could be said that she’s ever been here in the first place. It will be her choice to move, cheat, continue to lie, or to change her ways and begin to put effort into our life. I will continue raising my children and working toward my degrees until then.

Does my reaction to my situation make me abnormal? Only in the best ways.

The Supreme Court is ruling against the 4th Amendment (right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure). I think it's a set-up to prepare for them shooting down the second amendment, repealing the Tiahrt amendment, and seizing our guns.

I've been offline a few days, and i'm sure there is other terrible news, but it's late and i need to get some sleep.

The thought occurred to me over the weekend ... that the progressives/liberals/democrats/socialists had a huge upper hand in the recent election, largely due to unprecedented "grassroots' support. their idealogy was so appealing that people were flinging money and man-hours at them left and right (or 'left and left-er). This manipulation of the people brought in more than six times the cash the opposing party received from the traditional source, blah blah blah. As shown recently, some even volunteered to stand outside polling places in military uniforms, weilding sticks, and intimidate the demographic that was allegedly less supportive of their man.

So if the general population can be brain-washed into supporting the PLSD party that way, couldn't they also be manipulated into serving as the fists of violence, oppression, censorship, intimidation, etc? During the election we saw hints of their evildoing ... the Seattle Stranger publishing photos and addresses of rival supporters in the area (families with pro-republican signs), providing easy targets for vandalism and other harassment (which happened routinely to republicans in the area during the 2004 elections). In Idaho, democrats "accidentally" published the name, home address and social security number of a rival politician in a widespread ad.
as twisted as this stuff is ... 'grassroots' groups are a boon for those they support. These groups tend to spread their message and support virally, the support is more emotional and more polarized (it 'gets under people's skin'), and if these 'unofficial' groups go too far, the politician and 'official' group can easily distance themselves (as we saw Obama do numerous times, distancing himself from his terrorist friends, from Jeremiah Wright, etc).

I've been offline for the past few days because our phone and internet service was deliberately cut. I can't suggest who did it, because really, i don't know. A couple days after our phone and internet service were sabotaged, someone did a 'drive-by paint-balling' and hit my wife's truck. Had they done that and hit my pregnant wife, our son or baby daughter, my first reactionary projectile may not have been paint.

Anyway, we've involved the local law enforcement, and both incidents have been documented through them and in private ...

But i still have to wonder what purpose someone has in tampering with our life.

Protest grows outside Wash. Capitol over atheist display

09:38 AM MST on Monday, December 8, 2008

By kgw.com Staff

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Hundreds of demonstrators rallied in front of the Washington state Capitol Sunday, outraged over an atheist display inside.
The display stands next to a nativity scene. It has a sign that says "there is no God" and that “religion is but a myth and superstition.”
Outside, the protest included an opposing sign that portrays Governor Christine Gregoire as the Grinch. It also shows a balloon featuring Bill O’Reilly punching the governor.
When asked what the poster was supposed to mean, the protester carrying it said Jesus Christ was “spiritually” knocking the sense of God into the governor.
The display inside the Capitol, which went up last Monday has sparked nationwide attention.
A spokesman at the Capitol said they were getting calls from across the country at a rate of about 200 an hour.
Many were upset the the governor allowed such a sign in the Capitol. But state officials said the group that sponsored the display went through the proper legal submission process, just like the group that sponsored the Nativity scene and holiday tree.
“We're not in a position where we're endorsing any point of view. We have to be careful not to do that,” said Jim Erskine, with the Washington State General Administration Office.
"It's not a religious display; it is an attack on religion,” Freedom From Religion co-president Dan Barker said. His group was behind the atheist display.
As news of the controversial display circulated across the U.S., conservative TV personality O'Reilly called the display "political correctness gone mad" and urged viewers to call Gov. Chris Gregoire's office to complain.
“Washington state is ground zero for just about every nutty secular cause on Earth,” O’Reilly said. “She is a weak and confused leader who allows a fanatical group parody in Christmas displays. I mean, how crazy is this?”
Gregoire and the state’s attorney general responded to criticism by citing the First Amendment and releasing this joint statement:
“Once government admits one religious display or viewpoint onto public property, it may not discriminate against the content of other displays, including the viewpoints of non-believers."

[source: http://www.ktvb.com/news/regional/stories/ktvbn-dec0808-atheist_protest.4225cd84.html]

-----

AGAIN ... a display of hate used to claim a desire for tolerance.  Having a 'christmas tree' or a 'nativity scene' does not parade around hateful feelings, regardless of how the godless want to twist it.  there is nothing offensive in these displays, just as there is nothing offensive in the displays of menorahs or persons observing ramadan. 
Unfortunately, however, the liberal haters - last month the gays, this month the athiests - are attacking people for their beliefs, rather than observing their own. If the christians (or whoever the group is) were to follow the lines of the athiests, instead of a christmas display, they would have put up giant banners that said something like "repent and believe in God, or you're going to hell!" or whatever ...

i am actually sad some of the protesters have resorted to stooping to the level of the bitter and selfish athiests ... because now neither has taken the high ground. 

i'm glad we don't live in that disgusting state anymore.  wow.  Gregoire is kind of an idiot ... pushing canned food taxes on the poor, whining about not being able to get into a bar because she forgot her ID, writing nasty form-letter emails back to people who wrote her about gay marriage in 2006 (or 2007?). i also don't like her because of her campaigns cheap "win" in 2004, in which they illegally used felon votes and kept 'finding' votes until she was elected (the mysterious 3rd recount had her winning, after two prior recounts did not).

for those persons who still don't believe athiesm is also an organized religion, check this out: ATHIESM IS AN ORGANIZED RELIGION

I don't think mixing political biases and religion equates to a merging of "Church and State" when discussed by private individuals, or groups of individuals who are not in a position of public office. The more i think about it, the athiest-enforced gag order on churches preaching their political beliefs from the pulpit is unfair and ridiculous ... after all, there are numerous other 'pulpits' from which political beliefs are preached: rock shows, hollywood, television, coffee houses, farmer's markets ... and if it really comes down to an issue of whether or not a non-profit should have any political affiliation, then we need to also address Planed Parenthood/Obama, ACORN/Obama, and the numerous other 'friendships' that have been made between politicians and non-profit organizations. The American Atheists themselves routinely endorse political views and politicians ...

Today in the news, there was an article that was something to the effect of "Catholics Told To Repent For Obama Vote". I clicked on it, expecting some official decree from the Pope, but it was a video clip, and i really don't like the bandwidth issues and the 'don't wake up the baby!' issues associated with video clips, so i bookmarked it, and vowed to view it later ... and did a search for "repent obama Vote".

One of the links that appeared was a blog by some girl who was LDS, and offended that most other LDS folks voted Republican.

I think a quick bit of history should be tossed in here ...

The LDS pioneers, or "mormons" as they were called, were persecuted heavily by Democrats, like Missouri Gov. Lilburn W. Boggs, who issued an execution order against the LDS church members in 1838, and President James Buchanan, a democrat who in 1857 sent the U.S. Army to Utah to attack the LDS Church members who had set up their own city and territorial government, and place a non "mormon" leader over the territory.  

In the 1960's, the southern Democrats were predominantly anti-black, frequently attacking Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and other prominent blacks. Even President JFK, hailed in history as 'pro-civil rights', and his brother, Attorney General RFK, authorized wiretaps on Dr. King's phone by the FBI in Dr. King's office and home, as well as phones in hotels he stayed in throughout the country.  The Democrats continued to spread rumors (communist, womanizer, etc) about Dr. MLK, jr. throughout his lifetime, and even after his death placed heavy opposition against Republican president Ronald Reagan when he made Dr. King's birthday a national holiday. 

Socially, the Democrats have supported abortion, homosexuality, atheist attacks on organized religion, forced 'contributions' to welfare, government systems that discourage traditional marriage (instead providing incentives to single parents), mandating 'sex education' and other social and scientific theories be taught to children (homosexuality, evolution) against the wishes of parents, and taking prayer out of schools.  Democrats are supported by numerous 'progressive' groups who aim to promote widespread introduction of anti-christian philosophies as well as legislation that will burden and weaken organized religion, while undermining the pillars of faith in God, integrity of the family structure, and self-reliance. 

That said, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints does not tell or suggest to its members who they should vote for. Instead, the church urges all members (that are able) to do their civic duty and vote in elections.  The church urges its members to be 'subject to' governments in whatever land they dwell, and to 'uphold' the law in the lands in which they live.  The LDS church does not even have an 'official' position on abortion.  The church does urge members not to attack or harass those people who live a lifestyle different from ours, while at the same time recognizing the need for us to be able to live apart from those lifestyles we deem to be inappropriate as sons and daughters of God.

Why so lenient?  Because it is God's will that we learn to make the right choices, that we have the freedom to make choices - whether right or wrong - and that we understand we are accountable for those decisions we choose to make.

That said, we can easily suppose from passages in the Bible (and other scripture) what god would like us to do: 
"Thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it."
"be fruitful and multiply"
"he that lieth with another, like unto a woman, the same is an abomination unto God"
"they that seek after strange flesh"
"lean unto their own understanding"
"put evil for good and good for evil"
"they that say 'why do you follow in the vain traditions of your fathers, for there is no god'."
"men will be lovers of their own selves, without natural affection"
"proud, blasphemers, despisers of those that are good"
... and many, many other things (i was quoting from memory, so some of the wording will be off, but not the meaning). 

We also know, because of our knowledge of God's plan, that we might be able to choose good or evil, that it is wrong to force someone to "do good" - whether by literal physical force, or by legislation, because to force someone to feed the sick, clothe the needy, go to church, etc ... we are robbing them of the exercise of free will, and being dragged through a process gives no understanding to the 'giver'/'doer', and they are no better off than before.  (i.e., you can't think that you will receive blessings for being forced to do something).  This seriously calls into question, then, the 'good' ideas of taxing people and 'spreading the wealth around' (because even though helping the poor is good, forcing people to help robs them of the opportunity to 'do good' under their own choice and means). 
In a similar vein, we are a people who know that one important trait to acquire on this earth is the ability and desire to work.   Sad as it may be, government 'welfare' programs are horribly inefficient compared to the church welfare programs.  The government programs lose a lot of money in having to pay their 'volunteers' and others who work in the programs, the the programs themselves are so heavily laden with legislative restrictions that those in need are given just enough to get by, and there are no realistic 'worker development' or 'job transitioning' programs available (or required).   This difference is why people who go through the church welfare program are eventually out working and supporting their families, while those who subsist on government welfare merely become addicts to the system. 

We believe in working for things, in earning things.  Not that a person can only 'earn their way into heaven' - we know there is still an element of grace - but we know from scripture after scripture that God requires some measure of effort from His people, whether it be building an ark, walking across a desert, putting mud on your eyes or bathing in a river.  We know that God holds individuals accountable for their actions and works, that we are judged as individual souls, and not as a nation or religion or lifestyle. A form of government that lowers the amount of work required to live muddies the ability of the individual, and fosters laziness.  A form of government that removes personal accountability in favor of group equality blurs the lines of laws and right or wrong. I would suppose, in this way, the gospel is a little closer to Capitalism than Socialism.

Those of my faith who consider themselves 'democrat' go on and on at length about how they feel 'persecuted' by 'holier than thou' members who have differing views.  I would be target of this same accusation because i am opposing that way of thought.  It is important to point out, however, that going on at length about "members who call my righteousness into question because of my political views" or "they're only voting republican because their grandparents did. no one even looks at the issues anymore" are strikingly similar to the arguments made by persons who oppose religion in general ... "they all think they have the right answer, and they judge me" and "they're all a bunch of lemmings, blindly following the traditions of their fathers". 

I've had friends in the past who were so wrapped up in their political view, and perhaps in the friction it caused, that they felt it ok to miss church when their candidate was in town, or when there was going to be an 'important protest'.  I personally don't know of anything that makes it worthwhile to put aside the commandment to 'keep the sabbath day holy', and as fun as protests are, i can't help but always hear a scripture in my head: "contention is not of me, but is of the devil".

in the last two elections, which party was, by far, best represented in the numerous protests that erupted? which party was involved in the most vandalism, arson, assembling without a permit, and hateful chanting? the followers engage heavily in contentious assembly, attacks, rioting, websites, and other forms of ungodly force to accomplish their tasks and 'get their point across'.  if such contentious acts are 'of the devil', why would one want to associate with them? for all the attacks Bush got for 'with us or against us', the bible itself frequently says the same thing. 

When faced with the reality that they are supporting a part who supports abortion, inevitably the arguments also surface "_____ can't really change the stance on abortion anyway, so it's not really an issue" or "well, that's one bad thing, but think of all the good that will be done to the environment and healthcare and the war ...".  I don't know where to start with those arguments ... other than going on about 'complacency' and 'leaning unto their own understanding instead of God' ...
i've already addressed the dangers in socialism (eliminating personal accountability and decision), but what about the war?  we know from scripture that most other Christian churches ignore, that there are two major reasons to go to war:
1) to defend your family, your faith, your liberty.
2) to defend another who is unable to defend themselves against tyranny or another nation.
it is the same decision outlined by the 2000 stripling warriors, by the doctrine of baptism for the dead, and by the atonement of Jesus Christ himself ('dying for our sins').  It is our duty to choose to work on behalf of others.

But what about the environment? 
it is true that we should be good stewards of the earth.  God gave us this earth, and all the plants and animals thereon, for our use.  we know that all things have some measure of intelligence.  we also know that only mankind has the added option of decision between right and wrong.  i don;'t remember where i heard it, but i once heard something along the lines of "animals and plants know their duty and place, and all are incapable of denying the savior, and are not given the same level of agency as man".  should we run around killing them, then?  no. God also wants us to avoid meat when possible, "except in times of cold or famine". 
we know also, that before the coming of Christ, much of the earth will 'burn', and after the coming of Christ, the earth will be 'renewed to its paradisiacal glory'.  Look at patterns of 'global warming'.  i heard last night that in a heatwave in europe a couple years back, over 20,000 people died of the heat.  i've seen reports on the increasing ice in glaciers in some parts of the world, while in others the same are retreating.  parts of scorched africa are beginning to receive moisture, and new plants are appearing in the far north, in areas that rarely had much snow-free time in the past.
No person, no group of people know what is best for the earth.  many times in the past we've been wrong about things we thought were 'right' and 'wrong'.  I don't think we should live carelessly and wastefully, but i also do not think governments should legislate 'right and wrong' living ... and more particularly, i don't think, in choosing a candidate, 'environment' trumps 'abortion'. 

Still, we all have the responsibility to vote according to our conscience.  I would urge people, however, to not view this freedom as "there is no right or wrong answer", because there is always a 'right' and a 'wrong'.  remember, that it is not good that "man should be commanded in all things". 

I would also remind people that we live in a time where we, being disgusted that people once sacrificed their children to Molech, seem to remain unaware that each year we sacrifice 40 million babies for lesser comforts and lifestyles. Our society has become far worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, and voting for a person or thing that includes parts that are contrary to God is not in the best interest of the preservation of our society!