yjacket

I'll be blunt.
 
Something is seriously wrong in this situation and it's not the bishop.  Your child has some serious issues that if not resolved now will lead to misery down the road.
 
Obviously this teenager is quite frankly rebellious and is playing you like a fiddle.
 
You are more upset at the bishop for asking for details, rather than being more upset at your daughter for a) deceiving the bishop and actually explaining "tawdry fornications".  I can only imagine what that might be, if it goes beyond just "having sex".  
 
I think I might be more upset at any of my kids for making up such stuff, actually feeling comfortable explaining such stuff to an adult (especially a religious leader when it didn't happen) than doing it.  At least if they did it, they could say they got caught up in emotions, etc.  But planning something like that shows a complete lack of respect for authority, religion, and a total disregard for the actual sin of fornication.
 
If she feels comfortable talking about it now . . . there is very little doubt in my mind that later on it won't be just talk.
 
Again, I'm going to be perfectly blunt,  you need to wake up and take control . . .and even if you do now it might be too late.

Good question.  The Declaration of Independence is a fantastic document, however it is also a product of 13 almost completely independent colonies coming together in unison.  
 
At the beginning of the Continental Congress, one of the most important questions was who would say the opening prayer. The Congregationalist in the New England vs. the Baptists in the South vs. the various other religious colonies.  Unity in the colonies was a monumental task for a simple reason of religion as each colony basically had their own colonial religion.  Luckily some wise men (Sam Adams one of them) helped pick the right person to lead the opening prayer.  
 
Sam Adams was basically vital in helping foment the revolution and keeping it alive to get to the Declaration of Independence.  Without Sam Adams, there would be no revolution.  Adams was a Congregationalist and he was also poor, especially when compared to other delegates like Hancock.  Adams never cared much for wealth or property, at one point he was the tax collector for Boston and let's just say he didn't do a very good job of enforcement.  Jefferson certainly had a basis in Locke and IIRC the phrase was originally to be life, liberty and property.  The choosing of Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams (Sam's cousin) on the committee to write the declaration was important.  Being able to balance all the politics of the various colonies in order to send a completely united voice of independence was vital.
 
Ultimately, I think the phrasing was more palatable for all the representatives to sign, especially for some of the more northern colonies who's religion focused much less on the importance of property.
 
The Declaration is a fantastic document and Locke and Jefferson produced a fantastic groundwork.  But just like science has advance, the ability to extrapolate further upon natural rights has also expanded.  From Locke and Jefferson to Frederick Bastiate, Lord Acton, to Lysander Spooner and Albert Jay Nock, to Mises, Murray Rothbard and others.

I'll pick just one, property.  
 
All other rights can be extrapolated from property rights.  Before one can truly understand rights, a clear distinction must be made between legality and morality.  Legality means that a bunch of other people of the ability to forcibly deprive one of their rights.  Morality is a higher law than legality and is what one should do regardless of the legality of something.  A key distinction between morality and legality is should and must, morality is what one should do based upon either an internal conscience, religion, etc.. Legality is what a bunch of other people say one must do. 
 
The most basic property right is the question of who owns me?  Who owns my body?  And the follow-up question is what does it mean to own something.  To own something, means to do with it how one pleases.  If I own my body, and consequently everyone owns their body, then a legal framework should be set up to protect that right.  This means that anytime I do anything to another human being that they do not approve of (i.e. use of force), I should have my own property rights violated.
 
From the fact that I own myself, other property rights are defined, i.e. by extension anything that I make is an extension of me as I have mixed my body, my labor with things in the natural world that have no ownership.  Therefore, anytime that in a basic natural state (i.e. a garden of eden type scenario) anything that I form I have ownership over.  So I modify the land and create a farm, I own it.
 
The extrapolation of property rights can be used to form natural rights of life and liberty and freedom of conscience.  In a complex world, the interleaving of property rights can be very complex but IMO almost all problems in the world can be broken down to a violation of property rights.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

1st off, all marriages have issues, so this thought that you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by him being overweight is rubbish.
 
2nd, you are missing out on a fulfilling marriage by owning his problems.  His weight is his issue and his battle, it is not yours.  Yes it affects you, but you cannot control it, conquer it or fight it, only he can.  The thing you can do is be supportive of him.  Let him know that if and when he wants to conquer this battle you will be there to help him however he asks and then drop it.
 
I feel fairly certain that most people who are overweight, know it, don't like it and would like to be a healthier weight; they just haven't figured out how to fight it, either through strength of mind, lack of incentive, or it's not important enough at this point.
 
3rd, life is so incredibly short, there is no guarantee that moving on will result in a better life.  In fact, (unless he is abusive, in which case yes leave) you might just find that you had a great husband and you were too blind to see it- don't wait until it is too late to see the good in him.

Well its even worse than by law.  It is a mathematical fact that in order for our modern economy to run, it must take on more debt.  If the all debt were eliminated, pretty much all of our currency would vanish.  The actual #s that one sees in their bank account really isn't there because it's been loaned out.
 
It's a shell game/ponzi scheme. What most people don't realize is that paying off the national debt or even not going further into debt is impossible.
 
So, I'm not sure the ability to pay the interest with revenue is the catalyst.  In effect we are already doing that.  4 Trillon budget (of which say 500B is interest) and 1 Trillion is financed, how much different is that from 4T budget and 1.5T financed?  Now if the budget was 4T and we needed to finance 4T, that could still work for a while, until interest rates rose and or the debt-to-GDP ended way up there.
 
Right now and for the last 40+ years the US has a very unique position as being the issuer of the world's reserve currency and this a reason why the US will always have a trade deficit.  We export dollars to the world and they give us stuff, they take those dollars and use them as their backing for their currency.  Because of that reason, the US can abuse their currency more-so than any other country can and get away with it longer.  Even though the Fed has pumped trillions to the banking system, other countries are stuck with an inflating monetary base until something better comes along.
 
Just like SS is a ponzi scheme that works as long as there are more workers paying in than people taking out (with a built-in assumption that the working population will always be larger than the retiring population), the national debt is based on the assumption that future earnings of increased GDP will pay for the larger current debt.  Both work as long as the ratios between the two don't get too out of whack.
 
The main trigger is debt-to-GDP ratio.  At some point your economy becomes too over leveraged compared to the amount that it is producing and the debt it is taking on.  At that point, there are really only a couple of options 1) Hard default on the debt and start over. 2) Soft default by inflating away-which is what we do by taking on more debt. 3) Pay it off and naturally deflate.
 
What is interesting recently is the Feds QE and buying of Mortgage Backed Securities where they are basically trying to lower the leverages by directly buying loans and supplying banks with currency.  So it's a mix of hard default and soft default.  The banks were overleveraged on loans and couldn't pay them back so the Fed bought those loans and supplied them with cash even though the loans were worthless.
 
I saw direct affect of this in 2010 when I was purchasing a house.  I can't tell you the number of records I looked at that had the foreclosure for say 100k to bank A, the bank sold the house to bank B for 100k and then to Fannie and Freddie for 100k, even though the note was worth 50k.
 
The most insidious part of the whole process is that this is what causes the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer, except no one knows it.  The uber rich are rich b/c they are the most connected to the banking industry and the Fed. 
 
It ends whenever the US economy becomes too overleveraged, and other countries refuse to use the dollar standard, maybe 5 years, maybe 50 years.  When that happens, 2 things will most likely occur, we'll get a massive inflation shock followed by a massive deflation shock and possibly a new currency.
 
What will happen then, pain and a whole lot of it-maybe even a revolution.
 
One of the better videos on the this subject: