Smacking debate is back!

Just when we thought the smacking debate was all over after the anti-smacking bill was recently passed, it’s back in the spotlight again.

Cabinet minister David Cunliffe has been accused of smacking his 2-year old son at a shopping mall in Auckland:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10449047

Apparently someone saw him smack his child on the hand after having hit another child. David Cunliffe’s response was that he pulled the hand away, not smacked it. I guess from a distance this may look like a smack, and of course there’s no problem whatsoever with pulling the kid’s hand away. Why would a cabinet minister, who voted for the bill, smack his child in public? He would be a complete idiot to do that.

This incident was brought to light by a group called Family First. They are a lobby group (or an extremist group as the Prime Minister calls them) who are opposed to the anti-smacking bill:
http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/index.cfm/Action_Alert_/Anti_smacking_Bill

So why did this group bring this incident to light when they favour smacking of children? You’d think they wouldn’t worry about it. Are they really putting families first when as they have dragged David Cunliffe’s child and family into the debate now? Helen Clark said the group should be called “Families Last”. I agree! How can any group that claim to be supporting families support hitting our children? They support violence against our children – full stop! Hitting another adult, an animal, or a child is abuse and that’s all there is to it.

There’s a picture on the Family First website which says, “This mum gives her kids a smack sometimes. Sue Bradford’s bill would make her a criminal!” Well, she is smacking her kids – she is hitting her kids – she is abusing her kids! Remember, an alcoholic took that first drink, and abuser did that first smack.

They were talking about this issue on Newstalk ZB this morning. One caller said that he smacked his child in the movie theatre and was concerned that someone would report him. No one did but they should have. That guy is a nutter.

Now I don’t know if this Family First is backed by a Christian group, but I suppose they could be, so that brings us to the question “what would Jesus do?” Would Jesus smack children? Let’s look at Matthew 18:6

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

Mmmm, that’s interesting isn’t it? Let’s leave it at that.

A load of garbage!

As this is The Waipa Blog I thought I had better write something about the Waipa District! Earlier this week I received one of the new wheelie bins from EnviroWaste (obviously contracted to do rubbish collection by the Waipa District Council). I can use this wheelie bin for the next three weeks as a free trial, but then it will cost me money!

A flyer came attached to the bin stating the prices. It says on the flyer “Did you know an EnviroWaste wheelie bin collection costs less per litre than a prepaid rubbish bag!” Well, this may be true, but will it be any cheaper for me?

There are three payment options for the bin, annual for $150, six-monthly for $75, and monthly for $13. They say it’s cheaper if you currently use two bags per week – but I use one bag every two weeks! The bags are $2.20 each, so it would only cost me about $4.40 per month (cheaper than $13), $28.60 per six months (cheaper that $75), and $57.20 per year (much cheaper than $150). So even though bins may be much more convenient than bags, I’d rather save about $100 per year! I’ll take full advantage of the trial but I won’t be paying a cent for it after that.

So if any one in the Waipa District is reading this then do the sums for yourself rather than what EnviroWaste says.

I'm annoyed!

I've been watching 3 News this evening and I'm quite annoyed over some things happening in the world.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/Teenwhomurderedelderlywomantoserveatleast14years/tabid/184/articleID/29172/Default.aspx
In February this year a 77 year old widow on the North Shore was bludgeoned to death by a 15 year old boy. He has been jailed today for a minimum 14 year non-parole period. Only 14 years? It should be 40 years! I don’t care that he is only 15 years old. He went in and killed a defenseless old woman! So what if he is not usually a violent person. He was on this occasion and it only takes one murder to stuff up! The justice system in this country is just too lenient.

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/tabid/184/articleID/29176/Default.aspx#top
The Dalai Lama is currently in New Zealand and he met with some of the MPs today. The Greens welcomed him with open arms, and Winston Peters met him in private. Winston said he was meeting the Dalai Lama as leader of NZ First party – the Dalai Lama understood he was meeting with the foreign minister! National leader John Key just “popped in” on a meeting the Dalai Lama was having with one of his MPs. Meanwhile our beloved Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has refused to formally meet with him. She says she already met him briefly at Brisbane Airport, and it is not a high priority for her and has nothing to do with pressure from China. Yeah right! What’s more important, meeting one of the world’s great spiritual leaders or a free trade deal with China?

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/InternationalNews/tabid/187/Default.aspx
This story is really sad. A US military patrol in Baghdad discovered a government-run special needs orphanage with children kept in horrific conditions. They were left naked and unfed while those running the orphanage were selling the food and clothing meant for the children. I cannot believe that children would be treated this way, by not being given the necessities of life, so that people can make a few dollars. People like that need to be shot. I’m so glad the children were rescued.

Paris back in jail!!

Woohoo! I was very happy to hear this on the news this morning after what I heard yesterday morning:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/08/paris.hilton.ap/index.html

She most definitely deserved to go back to jail to finish her sentence. Spending her sentence in her luxury mansion is not a form of punishment! I hope she spends the whole 45 days in prison now.

When she found out she was going back to jail she shouted out “It’s not right” and called out to her mother. Well boo hoo! Now she knows she has to serve out her sentence in prison just like everyone else, and perhaps now money doesn’t talk all the time.

Paris out of jail???

Oh my heck!! I could not believe this when I heard it this morning. The "stupid spoiled whore" has been released after barely four days in the slammer!

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/07/paris.hilton/index.html

I was very happy that she was going to jail. It was about time she realised that she couldn’t get away with whatever she wanted, but now she’s out!

And what was the reason? Medical considerations! Words fail me on this one. We don't really know what these "medical considerations" are but one source says that she was refusing to eat much of the jail food. What, no caviar? Can she not reduce herself to eat common people's food? Don't they have doctors in prison that can treat her medical considerations?

Now she gets home detention. I really feel sorry for the suffering she will have to go through now, being stuck in a her mansion for 40 days with big screen TVs, cellphones, swimming pools, servants, etc. Doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me!

Is this a miscarriage of justice? Damn right it is! Only in America – the land of the free – more like the land of the rich! I bet if she wasn’t a rich celebrity she wouldn’t have got this treatment. She’d still be in the grey-bar-hotel like everyone else. Money talks. I hope there are protests over this one and that the people in California get Governor Arnie to do something about it.

God bless America – because no one else will!

BYU Professor's letter to PBS

I received this email recently which I thought was quite interesting. It's a letter to the American TV network PBS by a BYU professor after their documentary about the Mormons.


To: PBS Frontline & American Experience
Re: "The Mormons"
Fr: Thomas E. Sherry, Ed.D

Dear PBS,

I was disturbed and disappointed at the imbalanced portrayal and misrepresentation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which you aired on April 30 and May 1, 2007.

I wish to state some of my disgust with your method and message. My comments, of course, represent my own views and I am not speaking in any way as an official representative of the LDS Church. Nevertheless, I do have some qualifications: I am an adult convert to the LDS Church; my masters and doctoral degrees included a minor in religious studies; I have been an LDS Religious Educator for 34 years, the last 28 of those at Eastern Washington University, Pennsylvania State University, Brigham Young University, and Oregon State University. I teach World Religions, Bible and Christian History, LDS History and Doctrine. I serve as adjunct faculty on the OSU History Department and on the Boards of the Holocaust Memorial Committee and Religious Advisors Association at OSU (the latter is a coordinating body of the 28 religious groups which function on the campus of Oregon State University). My experience and education have contributed to the sense that PBS producers of "The Mormons" accomplished one of the most seriously skewed programs I've ever seen passed off as a public service. When I view or read "anti-mormon" films and literature, at least they are overt in their mission and purpose; yours, however, was a program from which viewers expect fairness and balance but which delivered just the opposite, a sort of "wolf in sheep's' clothing" experience. You described a church which I do not recognize, which did not accurately portray my beliefs, and almost wholly missed the mark for accurate journalism. My family has been staunch and consistent supporters of PBS both in time, devotion, and money this program causes me to re-evaluate the respect we have held for you and our future financial support. If on a subject of which I know much, you present such an imbalanced representation, what does that mean for so many other programs for which I know little? That is a disturbing thought and I feel as though I have lost a good friend.

Before going further, I wish to recognize the admirable portrayal of certain topics: The international welfare and humanitarian aid efforts of the Church; the belief in eternal families, the conversion story of the former drug addict; and, your sensitive treatment of the challenges of homosexual lifestyle and Church doctrine & practice regarding such. Thank you for those elements.

PBS Purpose and Vision

For days after the program I sincerely wondered just how the mission and purpose of your presentation had developed. Had it begun ostensibly with the intent to broadly "explore" Mormonism or was it driven by a darker mission? Regardless of the original intent, the show "felt" to me as a viewer like the producers at some point had progressively digressed from a balanced exploration to an intent to "expose the under-belly of Mormonism."

In an interesting comment from one of my university students, he said that he (a new convert) had invited his non-LDS roommates to watch the show with him. During the show he felt terrible and wondered what "damage" he'd done by so inviting them. But afterward, they turned to him and said something like; "I thought we were going to learn something about your Church in this program but this was just a rehash of all the crap we hear constantly. We didn't learn anything new." By the way, the most uniform observation I heard from students was that from the first minutes of the program, they knew this would be a bad experience. It felt dark, secretive, ugly, and ominous. Did the producers and interviewers just become enamored with all the controversy and forget their journalistic responsibility? It's a baffle to me. But the program evidenced a final production that seemed intent on: 1) "Knocking Mormonism down a notch or two;" 2) Tipping the "great American religion" off its pedestal" (if it ever were on one); and, 3) portraying Mormon history and doctrine as cultic, deceitful and secretive, absurd, and outlandishly weird.

What follows is some more specific comment on areas in which I feel you did a disservice and left viewers with skewed and erroneous impressions:

General Imbalance

Krister Stendall, former Dean of Religion at Harvard University and Episcopal bishop of Stockholm, Sweden, has stated 3 rules which guide his participation in interfaith discussion and exploration of other religions. The first two are:

1) "If you're going to ask the question as to what others believe, ask them, not their critics and not their enemies, because what one tradition says of another is usually a breach of the 9th commandment. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” It is important that we do not picture the other person's faith in a manner they do not recognize as true;

2) "If you're going to compare, don't compare your bests with their worsts. Most think of their own tradition as it is at its best and they use caricatures of the others." In the case of your program, it was not one religious view opposing another, it was the slick and sophisticated portrayal of the "intellectual and dissident" view verses the "un-intellectual and blindly obedient" Mormon mainstream and leadership an unfortunate and mistaken dichotomy. Regarding Stendall's rules, PBS somehow decided to give a time ratio of Approximately 10-1 to non-LDS commentators and those who are bitter former members with an axe to grind (some of whom I know personally). Do those persons have a legitimate story to tell and a right to tell it? Of course. But those persons were given the overwhelming amount of time and when time was given to the few LDS commentators, particularly in part 1 - it was in short and awkward clips with little context and sometimes so weird and irrelevant that you wondered why PBS even included the clip.

For example, with an almost dismissive manner you trivialized the Book of Mormon by numerous references to a strange and magical translation story, DNA and archaeological accusations of unreliability, and antebellum American context for a book which you portrayed as very human and very flawed. No matter that the book is among the most widely sold books in the world, that millions of converts trace their conversions to the text, and that intelligent people actually believe it. No, the best you could come up with on a positive note was a non- LDS "poet" commenting on how he really enjoyed the Book of Mormon as a rustic and quaint self expose' of Joseph Smith and hot button issues in his culture.

Additionally, Terryl Givens (a respected author on the Book of Mormon and other issues) was given the bulk of his time on the first night to an exploration of "dance" as an expression of Mormon theology. What's up with that? Weird, yes; representative, no. So was that the modus operandi of PBS? To emphasize "weird?" Did Givens misrepresent us? No, but the relevance of that portion to LDS history and theology was so insignificant and strained, and the presentation so mystical that it effectively conveyed strangeness, a seemingly central intent of the producers. And that relatively irrelevant portion was given more time than any other is sue from LDS commentators in program 1, a shameful misappropriation of time. Mystical strangeness was the hallmark of nearly every piece of art, shadowy background, and eerie music selections which dominated the show and exercised such an oppressive feeling. Did you want to portray Joseph Smith and LDS belief as demented and strange. perhaps even evil? Even the voice intonation and script of the main commentator added to the secret, strange, and oppressive aura of the show which focused on the sensational and eschewed the compelling and easy to understand story of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its international growth.

As such, the expose' was masterfully crafted if what PBS wanted to emphasize was "strange, secret, and oppressive." Watching the show was akin to reading one of the tabloids on the news stand - titillating but unreliable and misrepresentative. Is that what the producers sought to accomplish? If not, one would ask where the art loved by Latter-day Saints was; where was the light, cheery and faith filled art, music, and landscape which so represents us and is produced 100-1 over that which was chosen by the producers? Where were the pictures of Joseph Smith that looked normal? And where were the devoted, faith filled "normal" everyday Latter-day Saints in the show - particularly in Part 1? By the millions, they are the real story of the Latter-day Saints. Where were the intellectuals, scientists, and eminent public servants who believe? You interviewed many of them but they did not even show up in your presentation. Apparently including such would have worked against the purposes of PBS. Doesn't it seem rather contrary to logic to assume that anyone who believes in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its doctrine is ignorant, oppressed, or mentally incapable to discern "the real story astutely uncovered" by PBS? That's the message your program conveyed. Yes, you did give attention to Mitt Romney and Harry Reid, but the context made no effort to cast them as reasonably intelligent disciples. Rather, it was to explore whether a Mormon could be elected to any significant office given the strangeness of this religion.

Balance in the Issues

In Part 1 (Monday evening), you spent roughly the first 100 years of LDS Church history. HALF of that program was reduced to 2 events - plural marriage and the Mountain Meadows massacre. The rest was devoted largely to your view of how strange, mysterious, and weird Joseph Smith apparently was. Was that the best you could do for 100 years of history, accomplishment, and contribution?

1) Mountain Meadows - no question about it, this is the darkest piece of LDS history with despicable acts by members and local leaders. Thank you for including Elder Dallin H. Oaks comment on it. Among historians in and out of the LDS Church, there is significant challenge and varied interpretation in print on this subject and you covered NONE of the debate except a brief statement by one LDS historian who said he was satisfied that blame did not lay in the office of Brigham Young. But he had maybe 3 seconds, compared to 20 minutes by critic historians. The truth is, the most debatable aspect of this story is the knowledge and responsibility of Brigham Young. You gave that debate almost no time, not even mentioning it as a legitimate point of disagreement among qualified historians. After allowing critics to lambaste Church responsibility for the event you featured a preposterous summary statement as proof that the murderous edict came from Brigham Young. "Young was governor of the territory and nothing happened without his knowledge." What a silly statement. The Utah territory was a big chunk of land (encompassing current Nevada, Utah, and parts of Wyoming and Colorado), and pre-dated railroad and telegraph services at the time (Mountain Meadows w as a 3-day hard ride from SLC). Just how did Brigham Young magically control and know "everything" going on in the territory? And how about the indisputable historical record that a rider was sent to Young to get advice on the pending crisis but could not have arrived, conferred, and returned before the massacre had occurred? On a related matter, consider the restrained position of Brigham Young regarding not harming any individual from the invading forces of the United States Army who were heading into the valley? He did direct harassment and the capture of supply wagons; he did prepare members to once again leave their homes in the valley and to burn them if necessary to give the army no benefit from arriving in SLC. But it is well known that with all the skirmishes and threat, no direction was ever given to contest by firearms the invasion. Doesn't that seem a little contrary to Brigham Young then turning around and ordering the deaths of men, women, and children in an immigrating pioneer train? So where was the balance in the PBS report on this issue? You strongly accused Young and others of "running out of town" federal officials sent to govern Utah. But where was the coverage of those same officials acting illegally and mistreating the saints? Again, that was a balance you seemed uninterested in covering.

2) Plural Marriage - here again, where were the first-hand journal records of this policy and practice being a blessing to people, a trial of faith that in the end strengthened their testimony of Joseph Smith's inspiration in the matter and of the Lord's hand in this? No where to be found. But by far the greatest disservice done in the PBS report and other writings on this subject was to cast it as a sex-crazed policy of a lunatic gone mad with power - as though this was a lustful practice invented by Joseph Smith. Did you check into this interpretation - or was it just the sensational and pejorative that you were interested in?

Point One: Plural marriage was a common Bible practice. COMMON - not exceptional and weird to Bible peoples. All Bible believers, both Jewish and Christian must wrestle with that. And Jesus himself held up as the quintessential prophets and people of faith those who practiced plural marriage (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, etc.). The Savior even went so far as to liken himself to the great Moses and heaven to "Abrahams' bosom." Sounds like Jesus didn't have a problem with the practice. But did you mention that? Of course not it didn't seem to fit in your production purposes. After all, that would make plural marriage in modern times a restoration of lauded biblical precedent instead of a weird invention of Joseph Smith, not a message you apparently wanted to risk conveying. Latter-day Saints do not apologize for following the Lord's direction on this matter. We have nothing to hide. I may personally never wish to participate in the practice but it is not a source of embarrassment.

Point Two: Did you look into the history of this with Joseph Smith? Do you know that while studying the Bible he came across the plural marriages of these early venerated prophets and was in such shock that he went to the Lord in prayer to ask how in the world such a practice could be acceptable? And to his dismay and disgust, he was answered by the Lord - but not with an answer he could have ever imagined. In our publicly accessible scriptures (Doctrine and Covenants 132) the Lord replied by saying that He would tell Joseph Smith the answer, but once He did, Joseph would be asked to live the same law. This is among the best known and accessible of historical records on the subject but was never mentioned by you. And what a surprise - none of the critics mentioned it either!

Point Three: You erroneously portrayed plural marriage as an LDS requirement to enter heaven. That is how many fundamentalist polygamists think (you gave a lot of coverage to them!). But that has never been the doctrine of the LDS Church. Celestial marriage is a practice whereby two worthy individuals enter a marriage covenant and have it sealed by one having priesthood authority - period. That policy includes monogamous and plural marriages but the latter does not overshadow the former. You altogether failed to make this distinction in your show even though you devoted 40 minutes to the subject. And where were the respected LDS voices on the beauty of this belief? No where to be found in your skewed representation.

3) Missionary Service - In night two, you devoted a fair amount of time to a subject which deserves it - the amazing missionary program of the Church. But what was the dominant message you conveyed? It was that LDS missionaries are mindless automatons doing what they cannot choose not to do - no choice, no choice, no choice - "you go, you go, you just go," was the repeated message. And then to make things worse, 3 of the 4 voices you gave time to were missionaries who apparently went under real or imagined duress and subsequently abandoned the LDS Church. What a disservice - skewed and bigoted, flawed and incomplete. You portrayed such service, the LDS culture which encourages it, and the Church program which sponsors it as oppressive, mechanical, and regimented to the point of intellectual and emotional pain. It was Jesus that "commanded" (yes, commanded - not lightly "suggested") that disciples go into all the world and preach repentance, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, baptism, and enduring in obedience to the gospel - "Mormons" didn't make that up. Over the years, I have worked with hundreds of young men and women and older couples who were preparing and did serve missions. In my experience less than 1% have any such feelings which you portrayed as "normal." They deeply desired to serve, they saved and sacrificed to serve, and they count the time as the best years of their lives. Where was that message in your presentation? You did give the positive some time but there again; it was minor compared to the negative interpretation. I can only surmise that the overwhelmingly positive experience of hundreds of thousands of individuals was of little interest to you - you had a purpose and that overwhelming set of evidence did not fit within your purposes so you largely left it out.

To your credit however, you did give liberal time to the story of one woman convert and how the gospel had blessed her. Also, you allowed Marlin K. Jensen to tell his mission experience. Thank you for doing that.

4) The LDS Church is secretively rich and power hungry - I think you would have done well to return to the public record on this and how President Gordon B. Hinckley has repeatedly summarized in public interviews the wealth of the Church. Most of that wealth is in income consuming, not income producing ventures the bulk of which are chapels and other worship and welfare structures and land. To the amazing credit and faithfulness of members, many do fully observe the Law of Tithing and pay 10% of their income to the Church - we don't look at that as a suppressive burden. But again, that's a biblical precedent of which we follow in our day whereas you portrayed it as a mysterious coupe accomplished by secretive power hungry church leaders. "They have devious plans and bilk their members so they can exercise power over them to get personal gain and insure that no one questions their practices" - was the ridiculous mystique purveyed by critics. It's just plain wrong on its face, wrong in fact, and wrong in interpretation but none of that deterred the producers. For many years I have been part of and witness to the extraordinary auditing practices of the Church to insure that all sacred funds are handled legally and appropriately - I can assure you that it is done in minute detail. In addition, the Church hires non-LDS auditing services to assess its handling of these funds and to make an annual public statement. While the individual expenditures are not public record, those expenditures are publicly audited (a requirement by the Federal government for "non-profit" organizations). I am grateful for the law of tithing, that as members we can share the blessings granted us and elevate our brothers and sisters around the world both in and out of LDS membership. Tithing monies allow the work to go forward throughout the world and those few leaders (very few by comparison), who do receive a living stipend receive very little. They are poorer than if they held normal jobs in the world and anyone who portrays the leaders as accessing income from tithing funds to live luxuriously is mistaken. Those who publicly portray this message are ill-informed or downright dishonest. You did equally poorly on the portrayal of temples and their purposes, on Church disciplinary councils, and governance. I am very familiar with these issues and you did not portray an honest and balanced perspective. Again and again your cast and backdrops were intended to convey strangeness, weirdness, thoughtless obedience on the part of general membership, and extreme authoritarianism on the part of LDS leaders. You portrayed little respect, a great deal of antagonism, and a general avoidance of the grandness of the Church and its doctrines. One wonders just how the LDS Church could be growing at all given your abysmal assessment. Was that irony lost on you? Or do you simply explain it by adjudging LDS members and converts to be from the poor and downtrodden, the uneducated and desperate and hence largely unknowledgeable and indiscriminate? I could go on with other subjects but I hope I have adequately made the point. I'm sorry that you chose to do the show you did. I think you have done a serious disservice to the viewing public and to the reputation of PBS. I believe that viewers were left with erroneous ideas as facts and false impressions as reality - and the responsibility for that lies directly on your shoulders.

Thomas E. Sherry,
May 8, 2007

Burger King "soft porn" ads banned

The news today has said that there have been many complaints against the current Burger King ads and that the complaints have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority.
(See: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4076122a1860.html)

Good grief! Don't people have better things to do with their lives than complain about these type of ads on TV?? Personally, I think these ads are quite amusing. The ads feature bikini women and they're advertising a new burger at Burger King. These ads are not soft porn. They don't show any nudity at all (not like ads I've heard of in Europe!) What about the Tui ads with the "gorgeous women" working at the Tui factory near Pahiatua? They are far worse than the Burger King ads yet they haven't been banned.

You just get people complaining about these ads because they happen to show beautiful bikini women. What about the ads showing men in just their undies, such as the "undies, undies, togs" Trumpet ad? And remember the Carlos Spencer Toffee Pops ad? If there were complaints from men about this one, then there would be more complaints from women if they pulled it!

So get over it people! There is no nudity in this Burger King ad - it's just a bit of fun. And I guess Burger King are trying to target their main customer base - red-blooded young males!!

Could Not Be Said Better

I was sent this via email today and I thought it was quite good so decided to post it here. It was written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked-off lady!


"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they? And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?...Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11. I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia. I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat. I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques. I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs. I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care. When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care. When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care. When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed"special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care. And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and - you guessed it -I don't care! ! ! ! !

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior! If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan
I have another quote that I would like to add AND.......I hope you forward all this."If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under." Also by.. Ronald Reagan
One last thought for the day: In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said: "A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in... And how many want out."