Remember what that putz Orrin hatch once said about the death penalty? "It is our way of recognizing the sanctity of human life."
That sound retarded to anyone else?
It actually makes sense if you believe that the death penalty is Justice for murder. Punishing the murderer, however you do it, can be said to holding human life in high regard in one way or another.
The death penalty is our way of recognising the sanctity of human life? There's an oxymoron for you.
Welcome to the electric chair! They die, you fry!
Hey! It's good to see someone took my suggestion! Thanks, whoever it was.
You're right, MJ (as always!). That is an oxymoron, but then politicians, and Republicans in particular, are morons, anyway.
Jwb, I fully agree that the death penalty is justice for murder, because once Person A's murdered Person B, denying all of B's rights as a human being, then A has forfitted his/her own rights as a human being as well. In effect, you've denied me my right to live so you've therefore denied yourself your own right as well and don't deserve to live anymore.
Exactly MarkN :), but I'm a little confused. How can you agree with me, but also with M Jenkins at the same time and not be hypocritical? I hope I spelled that right.
That would be me, Mark. Don't nobody say that ol' me says that I don't listen, ay?
And Brian, that putz Orrin Hatch was correct (And is anyone baffled why people were so turned off to Hatch as opposed to Forbes? Let's see--Forbes has zip political experience, Hatch has served diligently for a long time, written up laws, etc. Forbes has a lot of money. Yet Steve gets 30% of the vote in Iowa, and Orrin gets 1%). We recognize that people who murder have disturbed the sanctity of human life. They have taken a life and attacked the image of God. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. In my opinion, we must execute the murderer to uphold the fact that we value human life. In a non-religious manner, the fact that you might die if you kill someone may discourage some people.
However, I do agree that the death penalty must not be used for anything other than murder, and there should be some time for repentance.
How moral is it that the U.S. has a history of executing individuals whose IQ falls into the level of mental retardation? That it has executed people younger than 18, thus violating international human rights treaties? That a person of color is more likely to be sentenced to death? What happens when new evidence is found to overturn a conviction after the prisoner has been executed?
*Laughs* Jwb, I just commented that Hatch's statement was an oxymoron - by recognising the sanctity of human life, we'll kill 'em. I, however, am for the death penalty anyway.
Jo-hanna, how moral is it for the US to keep death row inmates alive for decades, and make the victim's family suffer? What happens when, in the case of bounty hunters who kill, they realise that they killed perfectly innocent people who had nothing to do with the pursued bail jumpers? Those innocent people are dead, and the bounty hunters get away with it. And, to be honest, what sense does it make to make sure someone is in the best of health when they're going to die?
Is my tea done yet?
What kind of Tea? Earl Grey perhaps?
M. Jenkins: Exactly! You know that the lethal injection chamber in CA has a defibrilator(sp?) in it?
And then of course, there are those people for whom death would be too good. Should we kill them anyway? And what about those who commit crimes for the sole purpose of getting on death row? That is state sanctioned suicide! And SUICIDE IS ILLEGAL!
In the end, the death penalty really doesn't help. It satisfies a primitive need for revenge, something we need to get past if we're going to survive as a species.
Revenge is wanting to get EVEN with someone for doing something. Capital punishment is not getting even. It is punishment for the crime of murder. Getting even would be allowing the victim's family to, for example, draw and quarter the murderer.
MJ: Why are you confusing me with that Jo-Hanna, anyway? Is it my affinity for wearing women's clothing? (OK, I know, I am not fooling anybody :) but I'd rather remain "J." in this board)
I would rather tolerate the injustice of letting a murderer live, than the injustice of setting an innocent man to death. I have considered all the arguments in favor of the death penalty, and I don't think I will be swayed any time in the future.
Brian: I agree.
Frankly, the death penalty is not something I can support. From what I have read, the US is the only "civilized" country that still practices death penalty. I guess ax murderers and serial killers only happen in North America.
In the truly hypothetical case that the death penalty were abolished, can somebody think of another way to bring to justice criminals deserving of serious punishment?
There are other countries that use the death penalty, although I wouldn't really call them civilized. Doesn't France though?
If the death penalty were abolished, there are several other solutions.
1. Life Imprisonment--silly. We can't keep every criminal locked up for life.
2. Brainwashing--what is this, George Orwell?
3. Let the Victim's Family Decide about Death--probably the next best thing, in my opinion.
4. Lifetime Community Service--wonderful idea that won't gel in operation.
5. Send 'em to the Moon--now we're talking.
Here's another oxymoron of sorts. A death row inmate is about to be executed but s/he suffers a heart attack. Then, s/he is saved only so that they can execute him,/her! Ditto, if they prevent the subhuman (my favorite word for the day--check out the newest Abortion chapter) from committing suicide. What's up with that?
I would rather tolerate the injustice of letting a murderer live, than the injustice of setting an innocent man to death.
But if you let a murderer live he could kill more people. That is, of course, if he's either never caught or escapes or released due to prison overcrowding or some technicality or whatever.
I guess ax murderers and serial killers only happen in North America.
Not really, but we do seem to have more than enough for the whole world combined. I guess we've pretty much got the patent on them.
can somebody think of another way to bring to justice criminals deserving of serious punishment?
How much time ya got? How about lobotomies? Or a deep, dark, dank, cold cell with no heat, no clothing, one slice of moldy bread, two sips of dirty toilet water, no excersize, no visitors no sunlight, no contact with anyone except the guards? Maybe letting the victims's families decide the correct punishment, short of death?
And why does the death penalty have to cost so much? A well-placed .22 slug to the back of the head will do just nicely. Very cheap, little or no mess, little noice. Or here's a novel idea! Let any two murderers have a duel! Two birds with one stone!
To expand on that last one, how about having all convicted killers draw numbers from 1 to however many killers there are, then they go into a special arena or room with shanks, knives, broken bottles, rocks, clubs, ropes or any other weapons other than guns, and they can fight it out till one dies and the "winner" goes up against the next guy, and so on till they're all dead, and if it was televised throughout the prison (and on national tv) then we could get rid of killers a lot more efficiently than we do now, don'tcha think? If we did that, then you'd have skinnier, weaker killers go up against big buffed strong ones, but hey, that's just their luck of the draw, and besides, they really didn't have to kill in the first place and go to prison now, did they?
I also think rapists and drug dealers should be in the duels as well, up against each other and the killers, in effect making the nonkillers killers as well. We've all heard what prisoners think of rapists, so we could then see how a rapist would fare against a killer.
See? Ain't it all just so simple?
Alrighty, J it is. For reasons too long (and frankly, too boring) I won't expound upon why I avoided the J bit. But it's your call - I mean, only 2 people here know what M actually stands for (just 'cause I'm eccentric).
Jwb, I do drink Earl Grey, but I actually had Lipton last night.
J - I can see your POV, and in some weird way, I would actually defend it (even if I disagree).
Mike - Here's an idea I would support and agree with: If the justice system decides on a death penalty, and the victim's family disagrees, then it could be commuted to life imprisonment, no parole.
What's the purpose of parole anyway? "You made your bed and picked up your cell for the last decade, you can go back into society 'cause you were a good boy/girl." I, for one, believe that parole is a flimsy way of decreasing prison overpopulation. Phooey!
MarkN - That'd be a splendid idea with the gladiatorial punishment, except for one thing: The Fourth Amendment.
PS: I checked. France abolished the death penalty in 1981 for all crimes, and held its last execution in 1977.
only 2 people here know what M actually stands for
I actually know this... freaky, but I'd rather think of you as M.
5: Send 'em to the moon.
I LOVE that idea!!!!!!!!
But I have a better one. Let's put them all on an isolated island (killers, molesters, etc.) and every few weeks air drop confiscated child porn, guns, and drugs onto the island. In a few years when the population has killed it self off, we can send the next batch of criminals in. :-)
5: Send 'em to the moon.
I LOVE that idea!!!!!!!!
But I have a better one. Let's put them all on an isolated island (killers, molesters, etc.) and every few weeks air drop confiscated child porn, guns, and drugs onto the island. In a few years when the population has killed it self off, we can send the next batch of criminals in. :-)
*Blinks* You know what the M stands for, Matthew? How so? I only told both sets of Marks...
Who squealed?
It's on the This Week at NitCentral page. Unless you lied to Phil. Which I doubt you would do.
And all this time I thought it stood for "Myrtle".
...only 2 people here know what M actually stands for...
Not anymore, MJ. Thanks, Matthew. I'd forgotten just what NitCentral page it was on. And MJ, you never told me, as far as I can recall. I'd only found it within the last two weeks or so on the page Matthew linked above. I'd thought of calling you by it here but didn't know if you'd appreciate that or not (perhaps preferring to preserve the mystery), so I held back, but I guess Matt's link pretty much kills that mystery now, though don't it?
Anyway, back to the Death Penalty....
I read on the morning paper that the parole board in Texas was refusing to halt tomorrow's execution of a woman convicted of shooting her husband.
She and her supporters allege that she was acting in self defense, and that there was a history of domestic abuse.
If the woman couldn't prove it in court or an appeal, then the parole board has no reason to halt it under the law.
*Throws her hands up in resignation* Remind me to thank Phil.
Okay, okay...so what's the nickname that I go by online sometimes? What's the nickname that Crisa gave me? And what's my literary alter ego's nickname that I'm called sometimes?
And when am I going to get to court so I can change my name?
I don't know why you hate your name so much M Jenkins. I think it is rather endearing.
Endearing?
I've hated Marlene since I realised that people butcher it horribly, and can never get it right.
I happen to like Machiko (in case you've not noticed yet), since it's my mother's name.
And I hate Jenkins since I don't consider myself my father's daughter (more like my mother's daughter).
But hey - I'm strange. I mean, I like eating eels and whale.
Jwb52z: That comment was a smidge on the bloodthristy side to me. If there was a history of abuse, that should allow for reasonable doubt. Of course, Reasonable and Texas are two words that never seem to fit in the same sentence, with the rare exception of this one.
But hey - I'm strange. I mean, I like eating eels and whale.
Not so strange- I have several friends who are addicted to various sushi products. I myself won't touch the stuff, but I've developed a weird obsession with eating with chopsticks. Now I'm just rambling...
Of course, Reasonable and Texas are two words that never seem to fit in the same sentence,
You be quiet. I used to live in Texas, and if I still could, I would.
Hey, Matthew, you can take care of him... Remember, Texas has the "He needed killin'" law, doesn't it?
And for those of you who may take things too seriously, my tongue was FIRMLY planted in cheek when I typed that.
Ooo...I love sushi. And sashimi. And I also love to eat with chopsticks. Usually, on those rare occasions when it's a full family dinner, my mother and I are the only ones who will use chopsticks.
Of course, Reasonable and Texas are two words that never seem to fit in the same sentence,
You hush. Jinian lives in Texas, and she's pretty reasonable.
::Jwb52z: That comment was a smidge on the bloodthristy side to me. If there was a history of abuse, that should allow for reasonable doubt. Of course, Reasonable and Texas are two words that never seem to fit in the same sentence, with the rare exception of this one.:: Brian Webber
I'll thank you not to insult something just because you disagree with it. If the history of abuse could not be proven then it couldn't be used for allowing reasonable doubt.
Machiko: Hey! Fellow sushi lover here!
Hey, Brian! We'll start our own Sushi Lovers Anonymous!
Tacking Anonymous to the ned of that implies that it's a bad thing.
Considering most Americans treat sushi like it's the Japanese form of hemlock...and then refuse to listen to the fact that it is not raw fish (that's sashimi, folks)...well, you know........
Who says it's a bad thing? Just keep me away from the octopus...
If sush isn't raw, then how is it cooked?
And all this time I thought sushi was raw. I'd never heard of sashimi before now. Thanks, Machiko for that new info.
Sashimi is raw fish strips. Sushi is generally on a sticky rice thing, or wrapped in seaweed.
Listen to Scott, people!
I never said that sushi didn't include raw ingredients. I said that it wasn't raw fish.
Aw, man. I'm now in the mood for sushi and sashimi. And the octopus (tako) that Matthew doesn't like. Sheesh.
Could someone tell me how sushi is cooked since it isn't raw?
And I did know what the M. stood for, too. You told me in an e-mail, even though I forgot it until now.
I have nothing against the octopus itself, it's just that I've had to see people eat it from about a foot away, and there seems to me to be something wrong with the whole scene. Don't ask me why.
On the other hand, I do like certain vegetable rolls, and there's this egg (tamago) stuff that a friend of mine swears by. I suppose I should try it someday.
See? Religious Musings are educational and fun!
Yeah, Mike, well I'm now going by my middle name.
And if I can convince my parents to allow me to go to court, I'll get my first and last name changed asap.
Jwb, the rice is cooked like regular rice. If tamago is put into it, that's cooked too. The veggies are raw. A lot of the fish and other seafood is raw.
Matthew, if you ever want to have sushi, let me know. We'll have a big ol' sushi-fest at my parents' place (and my mother can prepare it).
Now there's a thought...the whole lot of us gathered in my parents' living room, eating sushi, drinking ocha, and discussing religion.
And if I can convince my parents to allow me to go to court, I'll get my first and last name changed asap.
Do they have to allow it? I was under the impression that you were over 18 and so could do pretty much whatever you want with your own name.
Now there's a thought...the whole lot of us gathered in my parents' living room, eating sushi, drinking ocha, and discussing religion.
LOL! I was thinking a backyard barbecue at my old house... sit out on a blanket in the yard and watch the clouds go by.
M Jenkins, how about Sake mixed with Dr Pepper?
Yes, MJ. You're a legal adult now so your parents can't stop you from changing your name if you want to. Just don't mind if they insist on still calling you Marlene, or whatever they call you.
And I'd love to come see you but I ain't got no money, honey. Funny you should say that, though, cuz I'd thought of a bunch of us here meeting somewhere in person but that's probably impossible cuz we're all so spread out, aren't we? You're in AZ, I'm in CA, MarkM's in OR, Matthew's in TX, and I'm not sure where all anyone else is. Maybe if one of us wins a state lottery they could pay to ship us all to one nice spot for a few days of meet and greet. Then we could duke it out in person, but in a nice way, of course.
::Jwb, the rice is cooked like regular rice. If tamago is put into it, that's cooked too. The veggies are raw. A lot of the fish and other seafood is raw.:: M Jenkins
I thought you said that Sushi has no raw fish in it.
*Ahem* When they continue to hold control over my savings funds, my transportation to and from court, and pay for several bills of mine that I cannot currently pay myself, I'll get permission.
However, I won't get permission to go to Vegas come summer.
Jwb, that's a disgusting thought. Sake and DP. I hate DP. Hate it with a passion. I'd rather endure being locked in a room with Vargo and Pesti that drink it.
Nor did I say that sushi has no raw fish in it. I said it, in of itself, is not raw fish. Americans have that common misconception. Maybe 'cause most of 'em cannot picture the thought of raw food. Dunno...
::Jwb, that's a disgusting thought. Sake and DP. I hate DP. Hate it with a passion. I'd rather endure being locked in a room with Vargo and Pesti that drink it.:: M Jenkins
I have weird tastes :)
::Nor did I say that sushi has no raw fish in it. I said it, in of itself, is not raw fish. Americans have that common misconception. Maybe 'cause most of 'em cannot picture the thought of raw food. Dunno...::
Ok, since you didn't clarify I thought you meant it had none, but you're right most Americans don't eat anything raw unless they are vegetarians.
MJ, do they hold that over your head? Or is that just your perception? If they are like that, it's very disrespectful to you. The old "As long as you're living under my roof you'll do as I say" argument, which holds water to a point but parents always seem to take it to the extreme. Don't you pay them rent or help out around the house or do anything else for a little leeway?
And if I may, unless it's too personal, to which I'll understand completely, why do they control your savings and why do you go to court? Or do you work at a courthouse or what? If you'd rather reply by email, if at all, that's fine, too.
MarkN
Why shouldn't parents have a say about who does what while they support their child? I kinda would feel offended in a way if my child didn't like the name I picked for them. I can see why she wouldn't want to talk to them about it right now.
The savings, I was told, has something to do with them still being able to claim me as a dependent on their taxes. I don't go to court on a regular basis, but I would have no way of getting to the courthouse to see the judge to get the papers signed.
I think their biggest concern is how my biological father would react to it - and how he might claim they forced it. Dunno the reasoning. But I've explained my stance twelve ways to tomorrow. Marlene is not who I am. I'm Aradia. I never identify myself as Mr Jenkins' daughter - I always identify myself as Mrs Anderson's daughter. I want her maiden name. I like my middle name.
Besides, why shouldn't people be called what they want to be called? There's no point in trying to be happy when people constantly address you by a hated name.
Actually, your full name can be as needlessly long as you want it to be, your legal name is the short version, to prevent six generations from creeping in.
(IE most women could still have their madien and names of Ex husbands, but most go with with just current husband to make it easyer to sign checks.)
What does the name Marlene have to do with that name?
Jwb, I wasn't referring to Machiko's name, but the other ways they have control over her.
LOL! Good one, Electron!
Well, in light of that statement, Electron/MarkN, I suppose I should keep my comments about love to myself.
I'll say only this - I'm a cynic.
And, I see no reason why I would sing any song (obviously, I don't understand the reference...)
I believe it's a Marlene Dietrich reference...
[I'm just full of trivia, aren't I?]
MarkN
I made a typo, I was talking to Electron, and I wanted to ask what the name Marlene had to do with that song, but after reading ScottN's post I don't have to ask. I think thought, that her name was Marlena not Marlene.
Of course you're full of trivia, Scott. That's why you're the Philosopher.
Why do people close their eyes when they're about to sneeze?
Jwb, it is, unfortunately, Marlene. A much hated name. And since I've never seen Dietrich act, I still don't understand the reference. But I'll just smile and nod.
(And then go off and strangle my mother for arguing with me and cutting into my showering time so that I missed my ride to my mentoring program.)
MJ, I think Jwb was referring to the immortal Ms. Dietrich... Jwb, she's listed in IMDB as Marlene (probably a contraction of her birth name - Marie Magdalene).
Thank you ScottN
That is what I meant.
I hate being a party pooper, but...
Did anybody see that documentary on Cinemax about so-called "honor killings"?
Most of it was about women who were killed by their families for doing things that brought dishonor to them, such as running away from home, refusing an arranged marriage, or being raped. The part that still shocks me is some smuggled footage from Iran, showing two people being stoned to death. Apparently, adultery is punishable by death there.
Being of a Japanese heritage, I believe in honor killings.
Well, honor suicide.
If there's going to be any honor killings, it works both ways. The husband rapes his wife (asserting his conjugal rights), and she should kill him.
But it's pointless. Honor suicide is a better route. Or better yet, just disown the b***h or b*****d.
Do you really think that someone who would do things like rape would have enough honor in their being to commit suicide for having done it in the first place?
If they have a conscience, yes. Some people do things they regret later on.
The chances of it happening, on the other hand...
But we now have this fun thing called divorce and restraining orders and disowning.
Ain't life grand?
M Jenkins
The likelyhood is what I meant because most murderers I really doubt are sorry that they murdered someone. Oh, you forgot annulment also.
But what do we define as murderers? We had some 92 year old woman kill an 80 year old man yesterday, I think it was. However, it's because her car lost control and she couldn't stop the car before plowing into him. Do we say that she murdered him? We might, since she took his life.
Dahmer or Manson, on the other hand, hold a pretty universal definition of murderer.
Now, what exactly is annulment? I understand that it erases a marriage from a past record, but beyond that, I'm hopelessly baffled. Is it a religious thing? I need clarification, darnit.
It's not murder in my book if it is during a war or when you didn't intend to kill. That's just my opinion though.
Ok, here's the definition of "annulment":
an*nul*ment (noun)
First appeared 15th Century
1 : the act of annulling : the state of being annulled
2 : a judicial pronouncement declaring a marriage invalid
Then it's the same thing as a divorce. Just a more archaic term.
Manson never directly murdered anyone, as far as I know. He was only the leader of a very small cult, of which some of his followers went out and killed some people. One, Sharon Tate,was 8 or 9 months pregnant, and also Roman Polanski's wife. I guess it could be said that Manson indirectly did murder them.
To me, murder does imply intent. If you drink, get drunk, drive, hit someone and kill them then that could be a form of murder, in my eyes, cuz although you didn't intend to kill someone, you did intend to drink to excess and drive and risk your life and others and unfortunately to kill someone. What really gets me are drunk drives who hit someone and come away with very little or no injury to themselves, or who go to jail but get out too soon and are repeatedly allowed to drive, or who do so anyway, against their probation and again drink and drive and kill someone. These people are allowed to drive without licenses cuz no one stops them till they kill again. The US criminal justice system is just that: justice for criminals, cuz they get to keep their rights, but the victims of crimes have little or no rights too often.
Drunk drivers who kill someone should get the death penalty just the same as if they took a gun and shot any number of people. There's no such thing as accidently drinking too much and driving. It's intentional, even if they neither realize nor want to acknowledge that fact.
Anyway, I could go on but I'm tired. I'll touch up on this again sometime.
I knew someone who was killed by a drunk driver - her and her four year old daughter. Last I heard, the drunk driver was being tried for manslaughter (or maybe murder 2).
That's a small step in the right direction.
M Jenkins
The difference between a divorce and annulment is that a divorce is still on record. An annulment means that it is like the marriage never existed in the first place.
::To me, murder does imply intent. If you drink, get drunk, drive, hit someone and kill them then that could be a form of murder, in my eyes, cuz although you didn't intend to kill someone, you did intend to drink to excess and drive and risk your life and others and unfortunately to kill someone.:: MarkN
To me, doing something like deliberately drinking like you say is like intending to kill someone if you drive after you're drunk. I'd say that that is murder because it is an intent to hurt others since everyone knows that drinking and driving are not good.
I think that with an annullment, in the Catholic church at least, the people are free to marry again. If they just divorce, the Catholic church still considers them married. I'm pretty sure that there can't be any children involved, because supposedly the marriage can't have been consummated in order for there to be an annullment. But I may be wrong-it's been a while since Catholic school!
That was my next question. How does a woman with an annulled marriage and kids explain that?
And how does the church go about determining if to grant an annullment or not? Get a written and notarised statement from the woman's gynecologist saying she's a virgin?
Time to remove my tongue from my cheek.
Unlike a divorce, an annulment means that the marriage was not valid, aka, it never occurred. This can occur for a number of reasons, although it has been a while so I may not remember all of them.
An annulment can occur if one of the parties of the marriage willingly lied about or withheld info that, had the other partner known about it, the other partner would not have entered the marriage. For instance, if the husband was hiding a drug problem, the wife could get the marriage dissolved.
It can also occur if it is found after the marriage that the genetic relation between the couples is too close. (This is not so much of a problem now as it was in the middle ages when there was little documentation and anything closer than a fifth cousin was grounds for an annulment.)
Sterility of one of the marital partners can also be grounds for an annulment. Theologically, the purpose of marriage is to bring children into the world and raise a family, an inherant inability to do this can make the marriage invalid.
Annulment also occurs in cases of abuse. I believe the "legal" reason for this is intentionality. It is argued that an abusive spouse did not truly intend to comply with the marital vows, and therefore the marriage is not binding.
There are probably more but I cannot remember them.
::And how does the church go about determining if to grant an annullment or not? Get a written and notarised statement from the woman's gynecologist saying she's a virgin?:: M Jenkins
Annulment is not a part of my religion, so I don't know exactly, but it would be interesting to find out.
IANAL, but I believe annulment is also a civil legal matter. In an annulment, there is no question of community property or alimony, since the marriage was null and void to begin with.
Any legal types out there know for sure?
For example, I believe the couple from "What Golddigger wants to Marry a Rich Loser?" -- I mean "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" -- got an annulment rather than a divorce.
I heard that Mistress Golddigger got something from the marriage anyway.
IANAL
Huh? What's this supposed to stand for?
Machiko, I think she only got paid $35,000 for being the, um, lucky bride.
Oh? I heard she got $50,000 and the ring and something else. Don't remember what.
She said in an interview that she wasn't keeping the ring, if I remember correctly.
I Am Not A Lawyer.
And I believe the ca$h and gift$ were from Fox, not Ricky-boy.
I dunno. Darva Conger isn't high on my list of people I need to stalk.
Well, I hope I'm worthy of being stalked by you, Machiko. Or should I be so lucky? LOL
Thanks, Scott. Looking back over that one post, it's more obvious now what it means. BTW, when are we gonna see you on anymore tv gameshows?
jwb52z: Of course you would disagre with Ben Franklin. He was an atheist.
I am the type of person who can't go along with something they are not totally in agreement with or confident in all the way.
And this has what to do with what I said, Jwb?
I said, if your Grand High Deity tells you that thinking is no longer required, I would be suspicious. Are you saying that because you have confidence in your Grand High Deity, you're in complete agreement with not thinking?
They count, but I don't think they, my family, are more, or equally, important than God.
Yikes. Remind me to never marry you. If your family doesn't hold at least equal importance to your faith, that says something about either your family life, or you in particular. I don't know. I don't want to know. That's your business.
Man. I have the same disagreements with my family that most people have with theirs. Sometimes I just want to strangle the lot of them and be done with it. But I received an email from my mother today that made me laugh. My family holds the same importance to me that my faith holds. No more, no less.
If my faith told me that family is less important than faith, I'd find another faith. There's an inherent problem with that. Especially one that would preach respecting parents but doesn't place too big a value on them.
Man.