Monday, August 29, 2011

Spoken Wisdom

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly the teachings of the New, he would be insane." - Robert Green Ingersoll
And if men wouldn't have followed either way back when... we'd have a different world now.

Sunday, August 28, 2011

Atheist Alphabet

An atheist...

Admires thinking and abhors willful ignorance.
Believes there is no god.
Can't understand the obsession with people wanting to believe in the supernatural.
Doesn't pray.
Expects people to open their minds.
Fornicates guilt-free. :)
Gets to sleep in on Sundays.
Has a growing support network.
Insists that you use your brain.
Just wishes that the believers would get it.
Kansan created this list. :)
Loves to educate.
Makes each day count.
Nauseates some believers, but it goes both ways at times.
Orchestrates his own destiny, hopefully with only a little interference from life.
Prison population is less than 1%. That's a fact.
Qualm? Being in any situation where religion, faith or prayers is not necessary or wanted.
Really doesn't want to be told "I'm praying for you."
Sees the world differently.
Takes the time to learn about the real world.
Understands things on an intellectual level, not a spiritual one.
Views religion as a problem, not a solution.
Will be diligent in their search for truth.
Xenophobic is REALLY scared of the strange people!
Youth and his friends will continue to advance the growth of the thinkers in this world.
Zealously engages in an active understanding of the natural world.

The Upside of Cutting Ties With Atheists

In becoming more involved with the atheist movement, I've heard many sad stories of people whose family and friends have basically let them go when they shared that they were identifying as atheists. My immediate thought is how unacceptable of them. Believers let a label destroy what was once a good relationship or let a non-believing family member no longer feel safe in the fabric of their immediate fold. All because religion and faith had no meaning for them. Christian love seems to be lacking there.

I wish that someone could explain to me how a person who feels there is no evidence for a god makes them less than the person they were before that revelation or how they are any different now versus how they were before they found out that piece of information. The atheist still has the same personality, same empathy, same caring, same level of humanity that he/she had before that was announced, so why should it change the relationship with the believer?

Human babies make connections involuntarily, the bond only growing deeper with each shared experience and the strength of that bond being a good one depends on the level of love, nurture and caring received and given to each other. As we get older and venture out into the world, we have the opportunity to make voluntarily connections on our own. Friendships start to develop as soon as commonalities are revealed and an ease is felt when spending time together; the more experiences are shared, the deeper the connection.

Being out and proud as an atheist, I've made many, many connections to people specifically because of my atheism. It has drawn many people to me and what I feel many wonderful associations because of it. I can see that some will be life-long friends just because of what they have shown me in addition to their atheism. And that is my point, connections we make are not really determined because of what we think or don't think, it is who we are as people, our character and our personality that keeps those connections alive.

This is what I keep coming back to - why would someone who has an already established relationship with a closeted atheist just let go when they find out that they are out of the closet atheists? It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the friendship they established or family relationship they are in. When you take that piece away they would still get along. The person who is belittled or betrayed because of that admission is not the one at fault nor are they reason. What causes the disconnect is not the atheist, but the other person. Sadly, I think this speaks more negatively about the person who detached themselves from the atheist than the person who spoke honestly about their feelings and what they thought about things.

Not all who believe in the supernatural do let go of valued relationships, but I've personally experienced it and many of my friends have shared similar stories. It seems to me that the people who choose to remove themselves from the lives of the atheist never had enough courage to be honest about their level of caring. Their support, love and admiration is contingent on rules dictated by someone else, not what they themselves believe it means to have and maintain a relationship. The person they choose to abandon is still the same person as before but because they now identify as an atheist, they are no good. Sitting in judgment of them seems to be easier than standing firm with that connection and defending the person.

When relationships are discarded, what makes that even slightly okay in their book? How can they just end it and dismiss this relationship of value without any hesitation? I feel it's really a stretch to call them family or a friend, close or otherwise, when some believers would eliminate someone they love from their lives because of a label. The bible says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalm 14:1) As if everything they thought about the person before is apparently based on a lie, a lie they think the now out atheist has perpetrated. They seem to feel justified in that decision to end what was once a good thing because of their religion. Again, how christian and loving of them. No compassion, just rip out the hearts of the non-believers in the hopes of gaining good favor with their lord. How disgusting and repulsive this is.

In my life, I've had to let go of relationships if they were damaging to me personally or we both had lost mutual interest in each other, but I've never let one slide because I've disagreed with their ideology. I really can't imagine how my life would be better if the person I love and respect would suddenly just have to stop being a part of my life upon the discovery that they think differently than I did. There are plenty in my life now that do and the person and their genuine goodness is intact, regardless of what they believe.

Any way you look at it, it stinks. For the person who reveals it, for the person who lets go and for the relationship itself. Every segment of this equation loses. And for what? A close personal relationship with a non-existent being is supposedly intact because of this action at the expense of a perfectly good human. That's disgusting to me. But maybe it's really a benefit in disguise. The non-believing person at the receiving end of this shameful action is better off. They are free to pursue more real relationships that are based in reality and truth. That should equate into more honest and healthy relationships for them and probably more satisfying ones.

So, actually... kind of a win-win. :)

Thursday, August 25, 2011

Do YOU want to know what's 'Under the Kilt'?!?!?

"Under the Kilt" is filled with 12 delicious, well-written erotic stories! Each story has it's own particular flavor and every single one stirred up exquisite mental imagery in my head. The variety of characters and plots were quite creative, always keeping you guessing where the next story would lead you. All were entertaining and each story certainly had the power to put you in the mood! For those of you who enjoy really good creative erotica combined with a fluid writing style... take a peek... it is well worth the time!

You'll enjoy going from one story to the next as they are wonderfully entertaining, written with genuine humor, wildly descriptive erotic scenery, and with words that will fill your senses to the degree that you feel as if you were right there experiencing everything right along with the characters. Every story with its rich detail made me feel like a voyeur! Each story line is so much different than the last and the tone of each one leaves you feeling a different experience. Add to that, the writing is easy to follow, engaging and hard to put down. It's been a pleasure!

What a treat it would be if Tiger's Tale, Later Days Saints and Mutated States of America would be made into short films... I'm waiting Kilt! :)

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Man Should Think

"Man should think; he should use all his senses; he should examine; he should reason. The man who cannot think is less than man; the man who will not think is traitor to himself; the man who fears to think is superstition's slave." - Robert G. Ingersoll

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Choose Reality

We've all heard stories where some freak accident occurred and a person either drowned, got electrocuted, stabbed or shot and miraculously made it through the harrowing ordeal only to have everyone close to the situation praise god for it. As if he had anything, at all, to do with it.

Now the last time I checked, the definition of a miracle is that it can only come about by divine intervention, meaning that it was a really detrimental situation before and then poof! divinity intervened and voila! you have a complete restoration to your original state of health. You know, like in the movies when vampires can get hurt, but they heal right back up again. If that happened before my very own eyes, I would have to call it a miracle, but this is not something that we see occurring.

Typically, the things we see reported in the daily news always have some type of medical intervention taking place shortly after the tragic accident. I would contend that the intervention is what contributes to their eventual healing and sadly, it's not getting the richly deserved credit. At times, when I have pointed this out the usual comeback is - 'well, it was god who put those doctors in his/her path to heal the people.' Naturally, it was in god's plan, all along.
The other thing I've never understood, what is the reason why believers thank god when someone gets better. They must truly think he did something or do they thank him because it was cool that god's will was their will or do they thank him for keeping the injured person alive? I'd like to understand that because why would anybody want to thank him for actually saving the person when, in reality, them dying seems a much more logical idea based on their belief system.

If you are a believer and heaven is so grand, wouldn't it be better to be up there with daddy than down on earth with all the sinners (fake christians, non-believers and evil people)? Why wouldn't they want that for their loved ones? Isn't it a better life for them up in heaven? Seems to me the reason they are glad that they think god has intervened is because they are selfish. They want them here for themselves.

The reason for being selfish is obvious. Who wants their day to day reality to change and no longer have their loved ones by their side helping to create the memories that sustain them at times. If they died, people would be very sad, possibly for a very long time because it's really hard to let go of the ones you love if you haven't accepted the finality of death. Facing that possibility can be very difficult, as evidenced by so many people dealing with depression after the death of a loved one.
I know that if my husband or my children would die, it would be hard for a bit after the initial shock because day to day reality is a warm, comfortable blanket I snuggle deeper into the longer we are all engaged, but I understand that death does happen and I accept that. The time will pass, change will occur and a new reality will emerge. Will there be sadness when hugs can't be obtained or kisses exchanged, of course, but a different version of life will go on that engages me fully until my own eventual death. As an atheist, believing that this life is the only one we get, helps me to make good choices every day that enrich me, add meaning to it and bring satisfaction to my life. It makes the process of going through the bad times easier and by accepting whatever comes my way is just something that must be managed until there is nothing to manage anymore.
But, again, following their logic - if I knew for a fact that the place the person was going to was better than here and their pain and suffering in dealing with life on life's terms was over - I would be ecstatic for them, sad a little for me because I would miss their presence, but truly jubilant that they are somewhere better. The prospect that I will join them at a later date only adding to my joy.

Could it be possible that believers subconsciously haven't truly accepted that god is real and that, more than anything, is what is contributing to them wanting those people staying here healthy and vibrant? They know deep down in the recesses of the active but religion-suppressed brain cells, the ones that are making sense of nonsense, there is no god and when they die they are just dead. They have not yet come to terms with the fact that this life is all there is, they quite possibly haven't made the best of their relationship with this person and want more than anything for them to stay alive to make it all better between themselves. That's a wild theory, one they would deny, I'm sure.

For me, logically, this life is the only one there is and that there are trained individuals available who will do whatever it takes to fix a life and save it from death. But also knowing that in reality they are not gods and sometimes life just doesn't work out the way I want it to. There are no illusions that it would be any other way with the tools and resources available to us in this day and age. I depend on that keep my reality a relatively stable one.
Life is hard enough but add to that a belief that a mysterious figure, who they can't possibly know what motivates him to do the things he does, is the only thing they have to depend on to get them through the life and death situations of their loved ones; that must be an unsettling way to deal with the harshness that life throws their way.

Ultimately, everyone must decide for themselves what constitutes life, but removing imaginary bonds to a supernatural being are the first step to a life that is grounded in reality.

Monday, August 15, 2011

The End Justifies The Means

A four year old boy thinks he was in heaven and returned to tell about it with details he couldn't possibly have known. His father (coincidentally, a pastor by trade) creates a book, a website and conversation kits marketed to churches and study groups. Oh, and did I say he's making a ton of money, too? Me thinks he has a vision of being the next Joel Osteen. Do I know this for a fact? No, but the emphasis on marketing this story makes it worth questioning if this is for real or not.

When I found out that this pair were going to be featured at a book signing at a local business recently, it just got my head shaking. I could just see many of the believers hanging on every word coming from the father and son's mouth because 'don't you know' that god is so great to have done such a miraculous thing through this boy! Validation of their beliefs was another motivation, I'm sure. I don't know how many actually attended the book signing, but the local bookstore probably enjoyed a monetary bump in their sales. So, in other words, it was a smashing success.

Prior to this event, naturally, it was brought up as a topic amongst the believers in my circle of Facebook friends. I did share with a friend privately that I felt the father, who created this little empire, was exploiting his son for his own gain. She also had a problem with someone capitalizing on this boys experience, but still felt that there was no way he could be lying about this. In her discussion on her thread she asked if it was okay to share my opinion. She eventually decided not to share everything because my viewpoint of the possibility of this even being real differed from hers, but she did say she disagreed that profits should be occurring in this case.

One person on that thread made the comment "Aside from the argument going on out of respect for each other, with beliefs, agendas, evidence, rationale and logic, don't miss the point that no matter how much money this dad profits off the book....God is getting all the glory." All I could think about is 'what an odd thing to say when you are supposedly one who believes in following god's law.' So sinning and corruption is now okay in god's book so long as he gets all the credit? I would contend that saying the sale of a probable lie to the believers of the world and profiting from it is okay because god gets the glory is like saying that pedophile priests are okay to molest children because they are doing god's work during their service, the ill-gotten sex is just a bonus.

After trading a few comments back and forth with this person, her not answering my very direct questions about the illogical statement, I flat out asked "So, does that mean, the end justifies the means?" I never got an answer, she shut up until the very end after everyone else had jumped into the debate to tell me that she was just worried about me getting left behind. Funny how that comes up in this particular discussion, as this is yet another book series that is making tons of money on the wallets of people who abdicate their reasonable thinking skills to defer to faith, if the topic happens to be about god. They don't question, they just swallow... hungrily, it seems.

Again, the question was, does the end justify the means? As a reasonable person, my answer to that would be no. If the means used to get the end is done in a fashion that is irresponsible, illegal or fraudulently obtained; then no, it isn't justified. Why would this situation be any different? Why would a supposedly great god want the all the glory that was ill-gotten in a dishonorable fashion? That just changes the image that believers put out there of a great god to a silly god who just needs flattery, in any form.

A less supernatural and more obvious example of why the end justifying the means is wrong would be the recent terrorist in the news, Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who decided to kill 80+ people because he didn't like what was going on in his country. I don't know if he is chemically imbalanced or perfectly sane, but his actions were clearly wrong. He, however, felt that breaking the law was totally within his right to get what he wanted. In his mind, his end -- enlightening the world of his agenda -- was justifiably gotten with the means -- killing innocent adults and children.

What about the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks who took 2819 lives in the process as a means to justify their end, that of glorifying allah? I don't think anybody that railed against me on that Facebook thread would believe those attacks were justified. But I guess it depends on the god then. It must be that thing I keep about hearing about that the christian god being 'the right god' is what makes every thing all right.

Not so great after all, really.

Growth Is A Must

"Just like dead trees in a forest of luscious and vibrant green, our society has people that aren't growing."  Susi Bocks

"The only thing worse than selling your moral principles for the favor of your peers is to change your principles entirely just for their approval. If who you are is a person who changes things for the better and it pisses people off, good, because you're holding onto what your principles were designed for." Shane Jones

Friday, August 12, 2011


Religion is for the Lazy

Think, think, think! This video says it well! 

Read, learn, listen… take every opportunity to educate yourself about this world. You are a human being who lives on this planet and in this society. Your understanding of how it works and runs
contributes to it running better, for all of us.

Not to mention you'll have less frustrated people on the receiving end of you.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

What is wrong with Wasilla?

How people think really boggles my mind sometimes. An article, written by a pastor in Wasilla, AK back in July, caught my eye and my knee-jerk reaction's attention. 

On behalf of women and as a woman myself, I couldn't help myself and responded to his statements. As one who doesn't believe in religion but also, as one who strongly believes that women are not chattel.

I emailed my response directly to him. 

Pastor Hamman -

I recently read an article you posted in the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman about spousal rape. 

There were a few things things that stood out for me and I wanted to address them with you. Since you put yourself out there with an opinion, I hope that you would listen to mine. Your response and rebuttal would be welcomed. Please keep in mind, I know nothing about the Lara Logan controversy that prompted you to write these piece. I am only commenting on what you have written.

I do understand that, being a pastor, you must look at this issue from the context of the bible, but the tone of your piece only assumes that a) women will lie and b) the reason spousal rape occurs is that women just withhold sex. So, then it's only the woman's fault and basically asked for it? Can you honestly defend that opinion when there is so much evidence against it whether in the context of a marriage or outside of it? This would be my first unfavorable opinion of your assessment. It's like you don't even leave open the possibility that men are mistreating the women and that the women are actually victims at times. I would agree that people lie, we do need credible witnesses to verify events, but many times there is physical evidence and prior behaviors that will support a woman's allegations. Sadly, many times women, because of the very edict you mentioned, don't even report the mistreatment. Again, your blanket statements that it seems to just be women who are denying the husbands release is the only thing to blame. How does that tie into the whole theme that we should only have sex to create children? Your arguments seem to only go to defending a man's desire as supreme and not god's will. So, not only are you seeming to come off like a misogynist, but you are also usurping god's authority by making a man's sex drive the important issue.

Next, the very definition of rape is that it is one of abusing another person. Intercourse should be an expression of love coupled with sexual desire for the other person. In a context of marriage, it is a beautiful and sacred thing. If a husband's wishes are denied, him taking his wife by force changes the act from one of love and desire to one of control and desire. It isn't even about desire anymore, it's about power. Power over another human being. Do you honestly think that is okay, even in the context of scripture?

Being a pastor, I can see why you might defend and still stand by your statements because a woman deserving getting raped by her husband is no different than the control your god has over you. You are just paying it forward. I truly hope that the women you pastor to in Wasilla can recognize that's all it ever seems to be about... power and control. And if that's all it is about, shame on the men who do vile things and stand behind their religion as an excuse and really, shame on you for furthering this ideology.

Thank you for taking the time to read this and if I have misunderstood anything in your piece, please feel free to correct that assumption. I would love to be wrong on this.

Do you think he will reply?

***UPDATE - He did!  Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:50 PM

Ms. Bocks,

There are indeed things that need to be clarified.

First of all, most people are missing the first part in which I bring forward an allegation against every pastor in the state of Alaska, that they are covering up the issue of spousal rape.  This allegation was brought against me by a female reverend, who told me that I needed to repent for statements I made with regard to Lara Logan, which basically I condemned her being gang raped by a multitude of Muslim men, and my assertion that Christians don't do this.

This so incited this woman that not only did she call several times and talk with my secretary, who defended what I said, but she also emailed me a copy of her complaint to the governor's office.

The very face of her allegation is very false, as I mentioned that I had never had any woman come to me with such an allegation, ever.  And in the ministry circles that I run in, I have never had any of these allegations voiced to me by any other pastor.

This is the crux of the matter, and without it, all the rest is just spin, and has been spun out of control into the violation of the ninth commandment, bearing false witness.  Quite simply, I have condemned rape, and will continue to condemn rape.

But there is a problem with the term "spousal rape"; actually, there are two:  1)  truth; and 2)  obligation.

Where it comes to truth, the marriage relationship is such that evidence for intercourse can also be construed as evidence of rape.  Barring any other evidence, such as bruising and physical trauma, the relationship is such that as a rule, it will come down to one's word against the other:  he said, she said.

While not all women will lie, there are those who do.  Lying is simply an offshoot of bearing false witness, and the propensity to lie is not exclusive to one gender or the other -- both do it with great frequency.  One police officer verified the difficulty with this, and even cited a case he was involved in and had to testify on.  The trouble is not only within marriage, but as our society's morals have loosened, many men counter with the allegation that the sex was consensual.

The Biblical guideline is for 2-3 witnesses, and from a Christian perspective, this is tantamount.  To allow the testimony of one voice to convict another for any crime is to stray from the precepts of scripture, a perspective that is portrayed in the lukewarmness of the church of the Laodiceans in that they were drifting from Christ literally in their relationship, even as their hot springs aqueduct cooled the mineral springs the further from the source it traveled.

While it may seem reasonable to allow the exclusive testimony of one woman to convict a man of rape, the fact is that this is unbiblical and has led vindictive women to falsely accuse men.

Please understand that I am not saying that this does not happen, but there are problems with the term with respect to truth.

I believe it was out of Poor Richard's Almanac that we get the phrase "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."  Truthfully, allowing one lone witness to convict and sentence is a pound of cure.  While there are problems between husbands and wives in our society, we are not going to solve them after marriage.  If the case of spousal rape is true, and that is an "if", then its prevention was missed prior to wedlock.

Let's think about this for a moment.  The average girl today knows nothing of modesty.  Modern styles promote the exposure of thighs, cleavage and midriffs, to say the least.  Generally, clothes are worn too tight, and often body part appear on the verge of "falling out" whether it is of the pants or a low cut top.

I realize that many girls do this to attract male attention, but the problem is that they attract lustful male attention.  I have 6 daughters, and I have told them often that what a man gets for free is cheap.  A man values what he earns, and truth be told, if he gets a free glimpse, he knows he can probably get a free feel, then more glimpse, then more feel, etc, etc.  You know where this goes.  While the girl might not have intended it to go so far, she started the endeavor by giving the first glimpse "for free".

Virginity used to be valued and the rule till the marriage bed on the wedding night, but not any more.  The true answer to this dilemma is not in trying to solve the marital problems after the fact, but before.  But how many churches do you know of that are promoting this type of thing?  And though our governor professes Christianity, do you hear this from him?  Of course not, because this issue has been politicized and he is cashing in on it.  But it is the ounce of prevention that we should look to in solving whatever marital issues there are in America today.

Secondly, there is the issue of obligation.  In marriage, the biblical precept is that one's body becomes the exclusive property of one's spouse, both male and female.  This is the basis for adultery, for adultery is the taking of someone else' property and giving it to another.  In the case of an errant husband, it is the giving of what belongs to his wife to another woman, and vice versa for the wife.

I know not where you stand with respect to Christianity, but marriage really only comes out of the Bible.  If you are opposed to things such as homosexual marriage, it can only be because there are biblical prohibitions against it.  While modern society wants to float the idea that a woman's body belongs to herself as long as she lives, biblically speaking, this philosophy flies in the face of God.

Getting back to the first issue, that of pastors being guilty of covering spousal rape up, the only way the allegation can be made is to side step this issue here so that a wife is allowed to control her husband by withholding herself.

While you can speak of a husband having intercourse as being aberrant and controlling if the wife wishes otherwise, the other side of that coin is that the wife becomes controlling by refusal.

The whole spirit of I Corinthians 7 is for there to be peace within marriage.  And though the Apostle Paul had the gift of celibacy and did not require a wife, he also recognized that not all men could be as he.  While the physical drives differ within each gender, from what I have seen and heard, the male has the predominantly stronger drive.  This is why female pornography grosses far more money than that of male pornography.

Again, here is where the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, again.  What every young woman needs to be told by older women is that it is completely normal, wholesome, and biblical to have sex often, even multiple times daily, outside of the menstrual period, the biblical time of mandated abstinence.  It has been said that the devil wants us to have all the sex we can get before marriage, and as little as possible afterwards; this needs to be reversed.

While you might chalk this up to women being baby machines, the truth is that woman was created out of and for man, and in the relationship of marriage, if she wants to be pleasing to God, she needs to give herself to her husband.  There really is no such thing as having sex just to create children; children are the byproduct of the union between husband and wife, the relationship being the primary and the byproduct being the secondary.  Women need to enjoy intercourse with their husbands.

What people need to understand is that sex within marriage is not only honorable, per holy writ, but it is also designed to defend against fornication and adultery.  Two people don't get married just so they can have sex, but once married, abstinence is only to be had with the consent of the other spouse; this is what the Bible says.  Thus, if the woman doesn't want to, but the husband does, she is supposed to willingly engage.

While many in our day are going to speak of a man "respecting" his wife enough to respect her wishes in this regard, this, too, is an unbiblical position.  Respect is never asked of parents toward children in the Bible, but children are commanded to honor and obey their parents (5th commandment).  In like fashion, husbands are told to love their wives as their own bodies, but wives are told to reverence (a word much stronger than just respect) their husbands.  The reason why men mistreat their wives is that they don't love them as they should, but the reason why a woman will not have sex with her husband outside of being sick or her menses is because she has no respect for him. 

My point in talking about a wife's obligation to her husband, and that her body belongs to him, is that our society it totally unbiblical when it comes to a wife's response to her husband.  Marriage is a big commitment and God wants it to be a sacred institution.  The allegation of the prevalence of spousal rape can only be made with a misunderstanding of what the Bible says about marriage, and the woman's part in it sexually.

Again, I am not saying that there is no such thing, but the issue of spousal rape must be carefully defined.  Coming from the "Christian" world, biblical considerations must be addressed. 


Pastor Ron Hamman

First off, I have to say that I didn't think he would, but the response I got... yeah, expected that.

**UPDATE - My Reply  8/11/2011 04:08 PM

Pastor Hamman -

Thank you for your response. As I stated, my email to you was in response to your comments only. Your clarification doesn't change what I was commenting on and it certainly doesn't explain away what I believe the reality of your comments speak to. If anything, it just supports my contention.

I've been married for 16 years, have 2 children and have, in both areas, lived my life as an atheist and a skeptic. The biblical references you cite to support your position would be expected, but none-the-less, not something I'm in agreement with. All those things that you see as wrong - premarital sex, a woman's right to say no, inappropriate (in your opinion) dress - are things that I personally have participated in, but none of the things that you say would be consequences of it have happened.

As I said in my original email, I realize that you are a pastor and must live your life through those glasses, saying anything different than what scripture would support couldn't be an option for you. This response isn't any different than what I would have expected.

Personally, I hope that the women of
Wasilla are smarter than that.

**UPDATE - His Reply  Friday, August 12, 2011 8:22 AM

Ms. Bocks,

As I said, I did not know your position with regard to Christianity, so I am not surprised with your response now knowing you are an atheist.  Sadly, the day will come when you will agree with me, but that day will be too late.


Pastor Ron Hamman
ewwwww... always love the indignant response of 'You're wrong and I'm right, so there!'  LOL  I'm shaking in my boots and I guess he's praying for me right now.

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Please Don't Say Anything

"He is NOT a Mormon.  Please get your facts straight before saying such hurtful things.  If he did this as a member of the LDS church, he would absolutely be ex-communicated."

I  saw this comment posted after a story ran that polygamist leader Warren Jeffs was convicted. This comment was in response to someone else's negative comment about Jeffs and the Mormons. Obviously, the person above who responded didn't agree. They got offended that someone attacked their precious religion.

The statement they made is flat-out incorrect.The LDS are Mormon, so denying it is ludicrous. The current LDS church originated in the Mormon faith, an idea that was concocted by Joseph Smith back in the 1830's. It wasn't until later that church leaders had to disassociate from all of the somewhat evil undertones, while still clinging to the so-called good bits of it, to ensure its continuation. Current believers haven't been indoctrinated with that bit of information, obviously. If those spouting their anger would crack a book and understand history a little bit, they wouldn't feel inclined to make these passionate types of statements in defense of their religion. They might even be less inclined to believe in their religion, at all, after they did.

The point is ignorance, in general, and the lack of facts will continue to evoke this kind of response from people. They will open their mouths and put something out there that is just not true, leaving educated people no other choice but to comment or correct.

Ignorant people... don't be a hater when they do.

I Just Am

"I am not right or wrong... I just am. But I'm confident in the knowledge I've acquired." Susi Bocks