Hypocrisy in the Land of the Faithful

You know, I try not to be so bitter towards religion. I try to be understanding.

Actually, that's a lie. That's how I used to be, now I'm just put off and jaded and while I let them carry on in their own conceited little worlds just fine, anytime they cross into the public domain, I tend to not let them stay there unnoticed.

The most recent fun I've had with the debacle that is the religious portion of our society, aside from the Gay Marriage debate, is learning more about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This spoof on Intelligent Design was created in response to the Kansas School Board pushing ID to be taught in schools.

It is an artfully crafted argument that truly points out all the logical flaws and poorly conceived articles of creationsim. The Gosepl of the Flying Spaghetti Monster came out this year and has already seen record sales.

A great idea, a fun way to point out the truly backwards and unsupportable arguments of the faithful, and hopefully the promotion of a little more logic in the world.



What really got me though, was reading through a blog for FSM Hate Mail - honestly, some of this stuff is nothing short of stunning in its hypocrisy. Here are a few fun excerpts to look at from our compassionate friends in the Christian community. I highly reccomend you take a look at all of the hate mail, the entertainmen:time spent ratio is stunning.

You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever been exposed to; throughout your page you repeatedly assert that evolution is the only "scientific" explanation of the origin of species, yet right on your front page you say that such absurd theories as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" should also be incorporated into public high school science curriculum. So let me explain this to you nice and slow; the Bible is the answer, it is what is to be differed to at all times; the Bible is 100% true- it says so in the Bible.

Brilliant.

I do believe you are a fucking retard and I hope you burn in hell. Fuck you and the flying spaghetti monster. Postmodernism is a self defeating concept. Read Josh McDowell's book for a good overview of what life is truly about you dumbass humanist. You obviously think life is just a big damn joke. Its all for humor and entertainment. I look forward to the day it fucks you right in the ass. Oh the age of the earth doesn't fucking matter! Technology, hell we'd be better of without it anyways. God is not a flying spaghetti monster because only a human could think up such a dumbass retarded idea like that. Intelligent Design is observable. It does not require faith, it requires the ability to understand what irreducible complexity is along with several other phenomena that has been discovered in Science. Evolution is a conjecture. Of course, an idiot of your brain size would probably believe we came from monkeys...and quite frankly, you are probably the best evidence that Evolutionists have that human beings came from a monkey. I'm still having problems teaching my dog 2+2=4. I hope to someday prove Darwinian philosophy and be able to have my dog recite Shakespeare to me. Then I will believe Evolution is true. Until then....its all a big damn joke. Charles Darwin went insane when he was 28 anyways (didn't know that did you?) Let me put it this way to you concerning your bologna flying spaghetti monster. If we are created in the image of what you believe God to be, we would look like spaghetti. Common sense is a valuable asset. Lets try this...I'm going to go very sloooooowly for you Bobby. Retarded people...like Bobby Henderson....will burn in hell unless you give your life to Jesus Christ. Life is not hard. Neither is it a joke. But I believe that anybody with a brain the size of a peanut should be exposed for the fraud that the person is. Quite frankly, I do not know why I'm wasting my time...because you are probably too stupid to read this e-mail anyways. At any rate, I have better things to do than point out your circular reasoning within your arguments. You are a disgrace to anything that humanity or your stupid existentialistic philosophy represents.

Casey Powell

How's that for Christian compassion and kindness?

Oh oh, or how about this one? I just knew the gay argument had to make an appearence at some point!

alright man. i dont know what the heck you think you are doing. but just wait till you are standing in front of the gates of heaven. when god asks you "Why should I let you into Heaven?" what are you going to say? "let me in because i mocked you my entire pathetic life, said there was a god better than you, made of spaghetti and meatballs. let me in." right. thats the point you go to hell. you are a stupid little guy with no girlfriend, so you're depressed. writing about your fake, gay loving man whore god. to get attention. all its gonna get you is a foot so far up your a** your gonna have ingrown toenails growin out your ears. you need to stop this stuff. all you're doing is getting yourself closer and closer and closer. to hell. not heaven. not paradise. not getting laid. not having children. not having a penis. nothing. shut the heck up already. no one likes you..except your gay friends who believe all this stupid crap. and whoever they are.. i hope they use protection with eachother, along with you. tonight. oh by the way. i am having spaghetti and meatballs tonight u little prick. i think i will just throw it in the trash cause thats where it belongs. along with your fake whack religion and fake god. so have a nice day, and hope u have fun gettin raped by your spaghetti and meatball, FAKE god.

Sincerely, Seth

Or maybe this? I hope you die and I do drugs but Im still going to heaven because I worship a different invisible man than you do.

your a fuckin faggot and burn in hell. if i knew you personally id slit your throat and watch you suffer as i laugh and do a fat cocaine like off of your dead body. I would then light you on fire, light my cigerette off of the ashes, smoke weed with the fire and piss on the ashes. then i would take your ashes roll them into a blunt and smoke them. i hope you fuckin burn in hell along with everyother piece of shit on this planet. -Cory Hart

Seriously, I need to stop, Im laughing too damn hard. Read it all for yourselves folks, this stuff is pure gold and should serve to scare you a little bit concerning the nutjobs that inhabit this world alongside you and I.

The Legend Himself

So yesterday, I met Maddox. Yeah that's right. Freaking Maddox. If you haven't acquiented yourself with this legend yet, get started.

This is a good place to start. As is this.

Anyway, he had a book signing in Tacoma last night for his new book, "The Alphabet of Manliness" which is the best book in the universe.

He came out and spoke a little bit before the signing and actually did a really funny, borderline standup routine. He's an exceptionally nice and very mild mannered guy in person, which surprised me as I was completely expecting him to be the cock he is online. It was a fun and pleasent surprise.









I snagged a copy of the book and had him sign it for me...






Along with a few other things...







For our group shot, we all came up behind him to have our picture taken. He humbly asked us, "So, you want the double deuce?" as he flipped both birds towards our cameras.

"Actually," my friend requested, "how about just a huge shit-eating grin?"

"I think I can do that," replied Maddox



All in all, an absolutely fantastic gathering. Furthermore, I have spoken with his agent/respresentative and I will be doing a phone interview with him in the next few weeks for an article in The Daily. That's going to be a lot of fun and Im really looking forward to asking him some interesting questions, but youll just have to wait for the article to see.

Money Talks and Bullshit Walks

Is anyone else sitting with a smug grin now that Metallica has added it's music to iTunes?

Stupid stupid hypocrites. Apparently, the pull of money is more than their own ethics. Not only were they ass backwards retarded to start the Napster opposition nearly a decade ago, they firmly stated that they would never start selling their music online.

I guess making more money overpowers an ideal and a social position? Idiots. Hypocrites. What do you need the money for? Making more crappy CD's? Buying more snare drums that sound like trash cans? Making another pointless DVD?

To quote their very own King Nothing

And it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger, but there's no one around
Just want one thing, just to play the King
But the castle crumbled and you're left with just a name
Where's your crown, King Nothing?
Where's your crown?

They were wrong to start this fight in the first place and this hypocritical flip-flop only weakens them in everyone's eyes.

Maybe if there new album is worth a damn people will change their minds, but Ill be honest, Im not keeping my fingers crossed.

Yeah - because this will stop them...

The Libertarian in me is weeping. Again.

On Thursday, July 27th - the US House of Reps voted 410-15 to block social networking sites from public access terminals...

Problem is, they're also nailing sites that have nothing to do with the emo waste-basket that is MySpace.

Even though politicians apparently meant to restrict access to MySpace, the definition of off-limits Web sites is so broad the bill would probably sweep in thousands of commercial Web sites that allow people to post profiles, include personal information and allow "communication among users."

"While targeted at MySpace, the effects are far more wide-ranging than that, including sites like LinkedIn," said Mark Blafkin, a representative of the Association for Competitive Technology, which counts small- to medium-size technology companies as members. "Nearly any news site now permits these types of behaviors that the bill covers."

Honestly - what exactly does congress think limiting access at public terminals is going to do? Their ideas are coming from apparently best interest...

"Social networking sites such as MySpace and chat rooms have allowed sexual predators to sneak into homes and solicit kids," said Rep. Ted Poe, a Texas Republican and co-founder of the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus. "This bill requires schools and libraries to establish (important) protections."

Alright, great, now kids can't get onto MySpace to post sad pictures and depressingly bad poetry from school. What about at home? Where are the teachers? Where are the parents? Does anyone in Congress honestly believe that preventing them from accessing these sites for part of the day will suddenly make them not want to use them the rest of the day? Apparently 410 of them did.

Honestly, this is a needless limitation of freedom. If you want kids to stay off of these sites, go after the parents, not the internet. It's not MySpace's fault that sexual predators creep on it and kids spend all their time on it. The market has played out that way and the sick, twisted, and perverted will always find ways to take advantage of their surroundings.

Instead of limiting our freedoms for absolutely stupid reasons, the governments needs to help educate parents and teachers to keep kids off these sites or at the very least, warn them about certain dangers of networking sites and chat rooms. Most of it is common sense and rather than now turning it into "forbidden fruit" they would be much better off with helping parents and teacher do their jobs and take care of their kids as they deem fit.

It's time for the government to stop telling us how to live our lives and stop making decisions for parents. This is why bad parenting abounds - more and more now, parents wait for someone else to fix their problems or blame their poor parenting on someone else. That's a poor trend to be encouraging.

Slowly but surely...

In an interesting note, roughly 20 years ago, a similar issue came up in front of the WA State Supreme Court and there the vote was 9-0 against gay marriage/union. Slowly but surely, reasoning, fairness, and justice are inching their way into the mainstream. Not quiete there yet, but soon. And it's about goddamn time.




Here is another logical look at things, courtesy of my former English teacher no less. Too bad logic is a rarity in most arguments placed forth nowadays, with even the courts suffering.

From the decision [pdf]:

DOMA does not grant a privilege or immunity to a favored minority class, and we accordingly apply the federal analysis. The plaintiffs have not established that they are members of a suspect class or that they have a fundamental right to marriage that includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, we apply the highly deferential rational basis standard of review to the legislature’s decision that only opposite-sex couples are entitled to civil marriage in this state.

Let's assume for the moment that the court is correct on its grounds for relying on the rational basis standard. The decision continues:

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes. Accordingly, there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause.

As the decision explains later,

Moreover, the correct inquiry under rational basis review is whether allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers legitimate governmental interests.... Granting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples clearly furthers the governmental interests advanced by the State.

Notice the missing word: "only." Clearly, allowing heterosexual couples to marry advances state interests. But consider an analogy: a "Defense of Voting Act." The State decides to ban gays from voting, claiming that "allowing heterosexuals to vote furthers legitimate governmental interests." Certainly true--but would it then follow that disallowing homosexuals from voting would also further the State's interests? No. The chain of reasoning is a non sequitur.

Nonetheless, in its deference to the Legislature, the Court claims to sit under a massive burden of proof. To defeat the rational basis, the Court would have to show that there is no "conceivable set of facts" to support a legislative decision, even if it is contradicted by empirical evidence presented at the time the bill passes. The Court, by its own reasoning, is not allowed to review the evidence or testimony presented.

According to the Court, the mere existence of an argument--no matter how flawed, fallacious, or unsupported--that gay marriage somehow dilutes heterosexual marriage is enough to say "hands off."

Fairhurst, in her dissent, repudiates this gutless view of rational basis testing [pdf].

Despite the deference afforded to the legislature, the rational basis standard is not without teeth--“the court’s role is to assure that even under this deferential standard of review the challenged legislation is constitutional.” [DeYoung, 136] Moreover, this court tends to afford more deference to the legislature when considering economic statutes than it does when considering regulations curtailing personal civil liberties....

Thus armed, Fairhurst continues, echoing my logical critique:

First, the plurality identifies encouraging procreation as a legitimate state interest.... But there is no logical way that denying the right to marry to same-sex couples will encourage heterosexual couples to procreate with greater frequency. Second, the plurality points to encouraging marriage for relationships that result in children as a valid state interest.... But denying same-sex couples the right to marry also will not encourage couples who have children to marry or to stay married for the benefit of their children. Finally, the plurality declares that DOMA may be rationally related to the State’s interest in encouraging the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex couples.... Even if such a goal is valid, which seems unlikely, denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no hope of increasing such child rearing. The denial of the right to marry to an entire class of persons is completely unrelated to the proffered state interests. Thus, DOMA is not merely underinclusive and/or overinclusive, it is wholly irrational.

Are people really this dillusional?

From the Seattle PI

The Rev. Rick Kingham of Overlake Christian Church in Redmond expressed simple relief. His congregants had been praying tirelessly for just such a decision.

"Today, God has intervened in the affairs of man," he said.

Really now... Call me crazy, but Im just having a hard time picturing God showing up at night to the Justices and going, "Psst, look, these guys having been bugging the hell out of me for a long time now, can you just do me a favor and shut them up temporarily?".

This decision was made on the basis of LAW and, though I may not agree with it, in the given context, the correct decision was made, albeit with lackluster arguments. It was the work of justice not the hand of God.

Muse - "Black Holes and Revelations"

My most recent music review is up at The Stanford Daily, enjoy :)

Inspiration from Muse's new album

July 27, 2006
By Mark Kogan

Talk about a tough act to follow. When Muse released its 2004 magnum opus “Absolution”, the band exploded onto the international scene in a way that nobody could have ever imagined. After an exceptionally successful international tour, a plethora of awards and a long stay at the number one position on both the American and European music charts, Muse went back into the studio to record a follow up to what has been critically acclaimed as the best album of 2004-2005 and one of the best albums in the last decade. Yeah, definitely a tough act to follow.

With the release of their fourth album, “Black Holes and Revelations”, Muse has proven that “Absolution” was no fluke. Furthermore, they make it clear that their sound will continue to elude a corporate stamp, growing and flourishing under their own direction.

“Black Holes” kicks off in a familiar Muse fashion in the form of the biting and emotionally vocalized social commentary “Take a Bow.” Front man Matthew Bellamy’s haunting vocals are better than ever as he condemns world leaders of their corruption and crimes singing, “Death, you bring death and destruction to all that you touch”.

However, the dark themes and minor chord progressions quickly fade away as Muse unleashes its happiest sounding album to date. The second track, “Starlight” is a direct throwback to the Prince inspired years of the 80’s and 90’s with major-infused keyboard leads and falsetto chorus lines. It deviates greatly from the sound Muse had defined for itself in its past three incarnations, yet still manages to sound distinct and unique in a way only Muse can.

The album’s first single “Supermassive Black Hole”, a beautifully orchestrated grungy rocker, showcases some of the band’s evolution since “Absolution.” While maintaining its new age computer rock effects and sounds, the overlaid vocals are reminiscent more of Queen’s intricate ballads than Radiohead’s monotone dirges, bringing Bellamy’s unique vocal work ever more to the forefront.

Muse’s customary sentimental love song is here in full force, showcasing the happier sound of the album in the form of “Invincible” which, despite its sappy message, manages to formulate a moving power ballad come its final minutes. Muse’s older sound is still very apparent in songs like “Assassin” and “Exo-politics” which, while not bringing anything terribly new to the table, are fresh renditions of what made Muse an international mega-hit in the first place and definitely satisfy.

Towards the end of the album, “City of Delusion” stands out as a crisp and powerful version of their new sound. Featuring new elements from acoustic guitars, to symphonic strings to soloing horns and plentiful vocal harmonies, the group shows off how it can effortlessly combine so many diverse sounds into a polished and authoritative single. The result is a deep and intricate progressive masterpiece that takes you for a hell of a ride from calm start to glorious finish. If this is the future of Muse, consider me already in line for their next album.

The band closes the album just as strongly as it begins, with another progressive epic entitled “Knights of Cydonia”. From introductory horse-hoofs to the head-banging conclusion, “Knights” expands and reworks the new toys shown off in “City”, using many of the same instrumentation but with a completely different result, further displaying this trio’s exceptional talent and songwriting ability.

Many may consider this a transition album but I wouldn’t place that title on it quite yet, at least not until we see their next offering. The album is noticeably disjointed in places and lacks the unifying flow that made “Absolution” truly revolutionary, but it carries all of the qualities to make it a very successful stand-alone album.

It would have been impossible for Muse to escape the expectations placed upon them by the success of “Absolution”, but to their credit they went off in a new direction musically rather than churning out “Absolution 2.0”. That kind of musical integrity takes a lot of guts in today’s money driven industry and speaks highly of the group’s overall character. “Black Holes and Revelations” is merely the next step in Muse’s ever-evolving sound and so far, it just keeps getting better. Most importantly, Muse has shown that the international success has not gone to their heads or to their fingers as they calmly continued their fascinating musical evolution. Only time will tell where they will go next but without a doubt, they are heading in the right direction.

Day 2 - True Colors Flying

And so the sun rises on day two of the political and social fall-out of the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. And now, people are really showing who they are and what they stand for. I haven't been this scared in years.

Senator Dan Swecker - R from Rochester was quoted in The Olympian as saying,

"Marriage is about children, not two people falling in love, said Sen. Dan Swecker, a self-defined conservative Christian who has been married for 30 years. "I really hate to see us lose that major thesis in our thinking as a people, or in our thinking in governance and laws," he said."

Looks like someone has had a rough 30 years with his spouse. This brilliant mind went on to say,

"My overwhelming personal reaction to it is that sense of compassion," he said. "Hey, we're all caught in some kind of sin or another. And when we do that, it separates us from God. I don't think those people are any more separated from God than I am."

Alright, if that kind of a statement doesn't worry you, I fear for out future.

I'm not just a naysayer though. I do have suggestions to fix said issues. I have a proposal, that we institute a federal law saying that anytime, ANY politician invokes the name of the Lord, in any way, shape, or form - be it "God", "Jesus", "Golden Calf", whatever, while speaking in his/her duties as a state funded politician - they are to be fined no less thatn $10,000. On the spot. No questions asked. With a law like that on the books, the stupid outburst would have cost Sen. Swecker $20,000. I would say, add in $5,000 fines for religious references, such as "sin" or mentions to the "Bible". That would leave Mr. Swecker's bill at $25,000. And while he may be a slow learner, I feel he would take a hint soon enough and if not, well, that's a hell of a state fundraiser.

Seperation of church and state is not a hard concept to understand. It really isn't. All you have to do is keep your own personal invisible man, his fictional book, and his invisible policies out of the realm of politics. You can enforce it in your home all you want, but keep it out of politics.


Whew. Now to the issue at hand...

First off, let's remember that this ban denies people labeled as 'gay' or 'homosexual' from receiving the same benefits as people who are 'straight' or 'heterosexual'.

Look. Anyway you want to look at it, that is a form of discrimination. I don't care if you call it marriage. I don't care if you call it civil unions, bonds, laws, or what have you. Call it 'faggot rights' for all I care (though I feel some may raise a louder ruckus on that term). YOU HAVE TO GIVE EVERY CITIZEN EQUALITY.

Marriage is a privilege. But it is not a privilege granted to you by your God. Every couple, of every faith, has to make their way to their local government office and get a certificate signed that allows them the governmental privilege's of deciding to join together as a single entity.

These are rights being given. To not allow another citizen to attain these rights because of who they are, be it black, gay, crippled, or mentally handicapped, is flat-out discrimination and cannot stand if our society hopes to be the forerunner of equality and justice in the world.

We were one of the last countries to pass civil rights. Wasn't the shame of that enough? Have we learned nothing from history? The "homosexual agenda" as dubbed, will win. Period. Eventually, and I feel far and away before the end of my life, will get their rights, under whatever name they want and this will be remembered as another shameful pitfall in our "equal treatment" ideal.

I want one

I really really love technology - and this theoretical gadget does nothing but enamor me all the more.

'Synthetic Gecko' material paves the way for real-life Spider-Men

"SOLDIERS and spies of the future could be given special "Spider-Man" suits, enabling them to climb up sheer surfaces and even stick to the ceiling, according to a leading British engineering firm."

Imagine the fun to be had!

The Right Decision?

The Washington State Supreme Court decided today to uphold the state ban on gay marriage. In a 5-4 split, the SC upheld the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) stating that it was constitutional for the state to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals when defining marriage.

I don't know what I think about this quiete yet. Reading the majority opinion of Justice Barbara Madsen, I wasn't convinced of the court's ruling. While I can see where she is coming from, the argument is weak and flawed at best. Citing biological needs and procreation as a supportive statement for marriage is an archaic crutch to lean on, one that has long been abandoned by most anti-gay marriage activists. The other opinion was a bit stronger in my opinion.

The fact of the matter is, if we are coming from that point of view then all impotent, sterilized, or post-menopausal couples should have their marriages absolved due to the fact that they are incapabale of procreation.

The dissent's offered a very solid counter-argument to the illogical belief;

"The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington's gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests."

Regardless, I don't think this was the main point of the argument. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander defined it best when he pointed out that they were not defining the rights of gays, only answering a question of constitutionality and, in essence, deffering back to the legislature, and I have to say, that despite my personal belief in judicial activism and a belief in equality, the courts did the right thing here. It's not the decision I wanted, but their deferral is the judicial and fair thing to do. I only hope that the legislature will get rid of the law soon.


On the other side however, while browsing the comments sections of local newspapers and admiring the complete shitstorm this decision has caused, I stumbled upon a very solid and interesting argument upholding the Supreme Court's decision. It had nothing to do with activism and gay or non-gay rhetoric, but took a look at the DOMA in a way I had never truly understood it. Here's the post, credited to an Michael Class that I found very enlightening;

The dictionary definition of marriage is “the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children.” Source: The 2003 Oxford American Dictionary of Current English. It's been the definition for more than two thousand years.

On September 21, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into federal law, with the approval of both houses of the U.S. Congress. The Defense of Marriage Act states: “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.”

In the United States, all people are treated equally under the law - all PEOPLE are equal. But all RELATIONSHIPS between people are NOT equal - because all relationships do not provide equal benefits to society. Men and women who decide to marry are afforded special privileges because American society long ago decided that encouraging men and women to have children - and raise them together for the rest of their lives - provides a unique benefit to society. Creating children, especially, is a benefit that can not be provided or duplicated by any other form of relationship.

So, providing special benefits to married men and women is NOT illegal discrimination, nor is it unfair. Illegal discrimination - and unfairness - occurs ONLY when two things that are the SAME are treated DIFFERENTLY. The union of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) is NOT equal in every way to the union of a man and a woman. The relationships are truly different - so it is entirely fair to accord them different privileges.

Because providing special privileges to men and women who marry is NOT unfair in any way, gay rights activists have devised an UNDERHANDED WAY to acquire the privileges of marriage while circumventing the will of the majority: They seek to change the very definition of marriage, thereby automatically conferring the privileges of marriage on same-sex couples.

In response, almost every state in the union has passed "defense of marriage" laws and amendments - essentially using the law and state constitutions as dictionaries! It's silly that such laws have to be passed and upheld, but they do.

Marriage is “the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children." Because this is different from all other forms of relationship, and provides unique benefits to society, we afford special privileges to men and women who marry. What is so hard to understand?

If gay activists want to be afforded the same privileges as men and woman who marry, then they must convince the majority that their "gay marriage" relationship deserves them.

So far, they haven't. And changing the definition of marriage - treating us all as fools - will not work.

Michael S. Class

www.magicpictureframe.blogspot.com

This period will be remembered in history as another major civil rights battle. I believe the pro-homosexual point of view will win eventually and probably sooner rather than later, at the latest, I feel it will happen with the coming of my generation into power, but it is fascinating to see it develop from the eye of the storm.


What it really comes down to is that this is the decision of the people, not the courts. New York spelled it out best saying that if the law is passed by the legislature, theyll uphold it, but they will not legislate from the bench and while it may slow down the process, it is the correct decision and they are to be commended and respected for it. I only wish WA's opinion didn't have as many missed arguments against it.


Oh well, back to scanning newspaper comment battles for now. Man, I feel bad for the people at the Temple of Justice today...

*rolls up sleeves*

Alright, it's time to clean this thing up - this is the start of a new age for The Gospel of Mark.

Everything prior to this post are old editorial columns I wrote in high school under the heading 'The Gospel of Mark', hence the title. From here on out, it will be more of a commentary than a posting of old articles but who knows where this will take me.

Welcome.