selek

"The Lord causes the rain to fall on the just and on the unjust. Blessed be the name of the Lord..."

Which she got......in abundance.....

Ah...the Juneau. Ponce was nearly identical, but we lacked the dedicated flag bridge. Good ships....and good years.

Yes, she did, which is why I put scare quotes around "snooping". To my line of thinking, her perusal of his past has all the hallmarks of an IRS audit- a damned if you do, damned if you don't Catch-22. If he'd refused, she'd have had her suspicions confirmed (at least in her own mind). If he didn't have anything to hide, why wouldn't he let her look? And look she did- and found the "proof" she was looking for. She also admitted that she didn't find the "incriminating" message on his machine- but in an ancient FB archive (over which he has no real control). In either case, the suspicion, the insecurity, and jealousy are all HERS. By her own admission, they are symptoms of her own issues and not his actions She is the one who needs to get the help and she is the one who needs to repent of the evil that is robbing her of peace.

Yep. LPD-15 (now AFSB(I)-15)).

Worse, I was Gator Navy. I hauled Marines and their toys around. Five deployments in six years, plus work-ups and humanitarian relief ops.

As can I. But she is still in the wrong. I was Navy also....East Coast Gator Sailor, and yes, I can understand your feelings.But just as it is unfair for this woman to punish her husband for things that are dead and buried, it is unwise for you to project your sympathies onto her situation. The situations are not at all analagous. Her husband is here, not at sea or on the other side of the planet. Her husband has not cheated on her. He has given her no reason to doubt his fidelity. There has been no contact between him and the old flame. By her own admission, she went "snooping" through his files because she was already insecure. The only thing she found was a years-old message buried and long-forgotten in an archive he cannot control. He closed the book on that chapter of his life and moved on. And she's allowing that artifact of days long-gone to amplify her insecurity and drive a wedge between herself and her husband. She is insecure because of her sister-in-laws' actions. It is not right, mete, or just for her to suspect- let alone to punish her husband for another's actions. The insecurity is hers. The wrong is hers. The repentance, likewise, must be hers.

I know. I've been around since you had all the gardeners running around painting the roses red....

ksh, ask those who know me- I am downright infamous for my subtlety and consideration of other peoples' feelings.And even I feel you went too far. You were too harsh. Two wrongs don't make a right, and now you are compounding the error out of pride and stubbornness. Sound familiar? The only person who's going to "get you banned" is you. Don't give them the ammunition.

Of course we do- we just call it issuing infractions for arguing with the moderators. :rolleyes:

Two things come to mind: first, that there is a double standard, and second that kshRox was a bit too harsh, but there may also be a method to his madness. Not too long ago, we had an individual post on these boards that he could not forgive his wife for the crime of being raped. He'd known that she was not a virgin when he married her, but did not find out she'd been violated until years after the fact. His complaints were two-fold: 1) that he couldn't move past it and 2) that he'd been cheated because he had been denied his wife's virginity. The advice he received (including from yours truly) was to "get over it". Several people recommended that he seek out a competent mental health provider for assistance. How is that any different than what kshRox has said here? The apparent- but not yet proven- double standard is that "tough love" is acceptable when the target is a man, but not acceptable when the recipient is a woman. Just for posterities sake, what is it called when men and women receive different treatment solely because of their gender? The two cases are identical in the crucial details: Both cases center around the OP discovering a facet of their spouse's past with which they "cannot deal". Both cases involve the OP admitting that their spouse was in no way at fault in the earlier events, yet (subconsciously or not) attempting to punish them for the earlier wrong. Both cases revolve around the OP feeling that someone else has trod upon their prerogatives (he was jealous that someone else had "taken her virginity", the OP is jealous that he once lusted after someone else). Both cases involve incidents with which the OP was not involved and for which any necessary repentance is long-since done and the matter resolved. My take is that "if it is good for the gander, it is good for the goose". It is unjust that the OP (in either case) to punish- either actively or passively- their spouse for events that are dead, buried, and staked through the heart. Or as President Hugh B. Brown once commented, "It is a sin for us to remember that which the Lord has indicated he is willing to forget." It is not this sister's place to punish her husband for something that happened long ago. It is not her place to drive a wedge between herself and her eternal companion over something the Lord has already forgiven. She needs to repent of her jealousy and set it aside- both for the sake of her marriage and her eternal salvation. One other thing I said in that thread bears repeating: The OP's spouse has taken an extraordinary leap of faith and trust by opening and sharing that past with his wife. Given the reaction he has received, how likely is he to open up and share like that again? That's the real tragedy here: that this woman's jealousy and insecurity are burning bridges with the person closest to her, both in this life and the next. * For the record, the woman I married was not a virgin. I understand all too well the pangs of jealousy that this sister is dealing with- for I suffered them (and still suffer them) myself. To that sister I would say, he is yours- now and for eternity. Love him, cherish him, and hold onto him. The only one who can deprive you of him is you.

Ah yes, the victim card. An attempt to guilt us into playing the game by your rules. Unfortunately, we are under no obligation to play. You will leave the Church or you will stay- but either choice is yours and yours alone. You- and you alone- will bear the responsibility for your decision. That's called "agency"- and no one can deprive you of it. The decision is yours. Make it- but don't expect us to jump through hoops to make you feel good about it. What could the Bishop confirm? That you lied to him? You've already admitted that.That you made promises you had no intention of keeping? Again, you admitted as much. This statement is, at best, a nonsequitor. On the contrary, you get exactly the same reward as any other tantrum thrower- you become the center of attention. For my money, the latter is the worse of the two evils.To quote the Apostle Matthew, " 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." (Matthew 18:6) Yes- we know that's what you want- because it allows you to be the center of attention.Unfortunately, no one here has said any such thing. We readily accept that your wife might well have received inspiration from the Lord. As a Church and a people who preach that the Heavens are open to the humble and the penitent, we are the LAST people who would suggest that she did not. The problem you're going to have to face is that no one here has alleged any such thing. We have not. Again- we have not done so, no matter how desperately you try to spin it.On the contrary, we would be delighted to speak with your wife, and discuss spiritual matters with her without you distorting the conversation. By all means, invite her here and let us speak with her directly. We always have time and love for the patient, the penitent, the meek, and those who seek the Lord.

The problem with your litany is that no one here has questioned her experience. No one here (save you, yourself) has implied that God does NOT speak to his children. We have nothing to fear in her reading these posts. We have nothing to fear in answering her questions, nor in providing our own insights. No one here has questioned your wife's experiences. But we have taken note of both your own passive-aggressive hatred and domineering, manipulative tendencies.

You.... cannot.... ALLOW....!!?!!!! Aside from being a self-admitted decietful, lying manipulator- just who are YOU to determine what will be ALLOWED in her journey of faith!?!? With those arrogant, insufferable, indefensible words, you have cast aside any modicum of patience and understanding I might have extended you. Your wife is not your property. She is not your appendage. And she is not your puppet to be constrained, controlled, or denied ideas and opinions against which you happen to have been indoctrinated. Had you said that you "could not support her desire", that would've been one thing. Had you said that you "did not agree with her decision" you'd have been on safe ground. But that's NOT what you said- and I find the slip to be very troubling indeed. The bottom line is this: you discounted her story out of hand. You discounted her desire. Your discounted her wants and needs because they don't suit YOUR agenda. Yes, dreams and inspiration mean different things to different people- but you dismissed her desires without even considering them. The possibility never even crossed your mind that her experience (and I'm not talking about things falling off shelves) might be genuine or real. You never even considered the possibility that she might be right. There was no analysis performed, no reason consulted, no thought given. You simply, reflexively, unthinkingly rejected desires might make her happy, strengthen your marriage, or expand your mutual horizons. Instead of expressing your concerns in a thoughful manner, you responded instead with mockery and derision, and used propaganda and pre-canned hate to deride her wants, needs, and desires. Because they aren't what you want. Yes- we know it all too well.

A wise mechanic (or carpenter, joiner, glazer, etc.) knows his tools well. He knows what they are designed to do- and what they are not. He does not ask a wrench to serve as a hammer, nor a screwdriver to serve as a wedge. He does not use his level to measure, nor his tape measure to pull. God is the mastercraftsman- each creation extraordinary in its beauty, elegant in its simplicity, and expertly suited to the role it is designed to play. His apprentices on the other hand....

I agree. This is the crux of our disagreement.I don't believe that what the Constitution describes as "inalienable" rights should be sacrificed in the name of collectivism simply because a bare plurality of my peers demand it. I certainly don't think that private organizations such as unions should be able to negotiate sweetheart deals through which their monopoly is enforced by the power of the State. I am put in mind of the screaming and carrying on which accompanied Haliburton winning a "no-bid" contract by dint of being the only company available actually capable of carrying out the contract. That was denounced as monopolistic (arguably correct), unfair, and un-American. Can you imagine the outcry had Halburton (as part of their sweetheart deal) succeeded in getting a law passed which outlawed any other companies joining the field in direct competition to them? Can you imagine the outcry if it turned out that Haliburton had donated lavishly to the re-election coffers of the very legislators who passed such a law? What, then, is the moral difference between our theoretical Haliburton and the unions using money collected dues money to elect politicians who pass "closed shop" laws? In both cases, it is a special interest manipulating the system to advance their own financial interest and to cement their domination of a specific field of endeavor. I agree.

Since you seem to be much about definitions today, I offer the following: A right-to-work law is a statute in the United States of America that prohibits union security agreements, or agreements between labor unions and employers that govern the extent to which an established union can require employees' membership, payment of union dues, or fees as a condition of employment, either before or after hiring. One more thing: Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." Membership in a union as a condition of employment (and where one does not wish to be a union member) undermines the "free choice of employment" clause. It should also be noted that: Northwestern University economist Thomas Holmes compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states. Finally, it is arguable that compulsary union dues are a fee that members must pay in order to secure a job. What is the moral difference between a fee paid to secure a job and a fee paid to secure a ballot?

First and foremost, I want to thank you. We clearly have fundamental disagreements on this issue, but you have at least articulated arguments to support your claim rather than mere caricatures. If unions cannot win the hearts and minds of the workers- indeed if workers do not feel the need to support the union, by what right may the union compel them to do so?If you think that I should eat more brussel sprouts- and I don't happen to like them- by what right would you compel me to do so? By your own definition, the unions are there (ostensibly) to support the workers interests and goals. If the workers don't want that representation, by what right may the union force it upon them? In your opinion.Your opinion does not a fact make. In your opinion.Your opinion does not a fact make. Ironically, that list includes unions. Interesting to note, however, that neither you nor Anne want to address the overt racism displayed by union thugs at the Michigan riots this very week.... Without question, unions were a large part of that.What you cannot escape, however, is that when given the choice, the workers themselves are deserting the unions in droves. If they do not feel the need to have the union represent them, then who are you to force that choice upon them? Red-herring. In a great many closed-shop states and industries, there is no non-union alternative.You either play the game by their rules or go without. By any definition, that's called a monopoly. And monopolies invariably hurt competition and freedom. Nor are closed shops, compulsory membership, or forced allegiance enshrined in those documents.The problem is that you are still arguing a red-herring. The right of the workers to organize is NOT under attack. If the workers feel they need the union, they will join voluntarily. If they do not, it is immoral and unethical to force them to join.

This is a strawman.The right of workers to organize is not under attack. Only the right of unions to compel membership as a condition of employment. The two are not synonymous. Workers are still free to organize if they feel the need to do so. It is their decision. On a related note, your line of argument also puts paid to the derision "corporations as people" has received. Unions are organized as non-profit corporations for tax purposes. If the union corporation has "rights"- as you allege, so too, must the employer corporation. Are there any other organizations to which you feel an American citizen can be forced to pledge his allegiance?

"Right to work" is a catch-phrase, nothing more. As a result it means different things to different people in different contexts. In this instance, the legislation passed does two things: first, it removes the right of unions to demand membership as a condition of employment, and second, removes the right of the unions to automaticallt deduct dues from employee paychecks without their express consent. Nothing in this legislation demands the disbanding of unions, nor does it prevent workers from voluntarily organizing. It simply removes the ability of the union to threaten a worker's job unless he swears fealty. That's not "anti-union", it's "pro-worker". You have offered us nothing in this thread except Kool-aid flavored rhetoric about the evils of anyone who opposes compulsory union membership. You've played the race-card, the class-envy card, and the "un-American" card. But you've offered no facts, no reason, and no justification as to why an American citizen can or should be forced to join an organization against his will. You've offered up cartoon-character portrayals of employers and non-union members, you've resorted to name-calling and character assassination. But you've yet to offer up any evidence that right-to-work legislation intrinsically and inescapably harms unions or prevents workers from organizing. Because "you say so" isn't an argument, it's a statement of faith. Declaring that the world is flat doesn't make it so..... ...and neither do empty declarations about other people's super-secret intentions. Come back and talk to me when you're interested in a serious discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of compulsory membership.

I find it truly amazing what one can accomplish when one makes up one's vocabulary as one goes..To quote from Through the Looking Glass (specifically, Alice's conversation with Humpty-Dumpty). By arbitrarily redefining "sane" to mean what you want it to mean, you are stacking the deck in favor of your presumptions, just as was Humpty Dumpty in the excerpt above. This is all speculation, at best.As had been cited many times in this thread, we do not know why this man committed this horrific crime. If it is premature to judge him, it is equally premature to exonerate him by claiming "mental illness". That someone cannot conceive of a world that is not flat, in no way obliges the rest of us to listen to lectures about why those of us who prefer to live on a globe are somehow close-minded and judgemental. Likewise.I do want to say two things: First, I agree with Margin of Error that we should be mourning the senseless and needless deaths of twenty-eight people (apparently, the shooter killed his brother at his home in addition to those killed at the school). That does not mean, however, that we should place reason or justice in abeyance while we mourn. Second, it is human nature to seek for rational explanations for senseless tragedy. As humans, we crave a world that is orderly, reasonable, and sensible. Tragedies such as this- the inexplicable, the injustifiable, and the insensible are hard to pigeon hole into nice, neat mathematical equations with nothing left over. In my opinion, the impulse to declare the shooter "irrational" or "insane" (particularly when doing so well ahead of the evidence) says less about the perpetrator's state of mind than it does about our own- particularly that we need the shooter to be crazy so as to avoid confronting the reality that there are things we can neither comprehend nor control. Does anybody remember the hoax about a state legislature arbitrarily redefining pi to 3 so as to bring it in line with Biblical precepts? To my mind, declaring the shooter "crazy" is exactly the same phenomenon of pigeonholing someone (or something) to avoid having our assumptions and prejudices challenged.

Moe, I agree with everything you said except for the following two points: Nonsense. Sane, rational people commit violent crimes every day. The murders in Connecticut are an extreme example, but it is not without precedent.Children from good homes and good families choose evil over good every day of the week. More to the point, however, with this statement, you are both begging the question and contradicting yourself. Withholding judgement means not condemning him without the facts. It also means not absolving him of responsibility without the facts. You are correct when you say that we don't know what this man's struggles were. To acknowledge that and yet turn around and speculate that he must have been the victim of mental illness, of anger, depression, and/or abuse is to speculate ahead of your facts. I suppose that depends upon what you mean by "embrace", doesn't it?If this man was truly insane, then he bears no responsibility for his crime. There was no sin because there was no agency. He will be welcomed as yet another victim of this tragedy. If, on the other hand, he was sane and cognizant of his actions, then he bears the taint of his actions. For you to assume that he will be welcomed "without judgement" is to assume that he bears no responsibility for his crimes- an assertion not anywhere in evidence. For you to assume that he is but another victim in this tragedy is to assume that he was not responsible- again, an assertion without any evidence behind it. I also find the "without judgement" qualifier to be counter-scriptural, at best-. We are taught quite explicitly and clearly in Scripture that 1) we cannot be saved in our sins, and 2) that no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Finally, we are taught that Christ is our penultimate judge and advocate. If by "embrace", you mean "welcome him, weep with him, and try to comfort him", then I can agree. If by "embrace", you mean "welcome him without judgement and with forgiveness and sanction" then you are presuming... much. While we don't know his heart, his mind, or the state of his soul, Christ as our Lord, Savior, advocate, and judge does know. And this man will be judged by Christ, accordingly. Perhaps it would be best that- as you insist that we not judge the man- that you practice some of that restraint yourself.

Second.All in favor?

I'm sorry- I wasn't the one who preremptorily announced that certain opinions were inappropriate, invalid, and illegitimate. How silly of me to try and defuse a tense situation by showing that both sides of the coin have legitimate concerns. What could I have been thinking by pointing out that a rush to judgement- either of the mental health of the shooters or of the motives of friends with whom we disagree- is premature, at best.

There is, in my opinion, an unfortunate tendency in our society to pathologize crime. It is easier to dismiss evil acts as the result of unbalanced minds rather than to simply acknowledge that some people are simply, irredeemably evil. To my mind, to define anything act we cannot comprehend as mental illness is intrinsically unhealthy, in and of itself. As Vort pointed out, there are a startling number of people being treated with psychoactive drugs. "Bipolar" is one of the current watchwords. Less than a decade ago, it was "ADHD". It seems to me that, as part of the unhealthy trend to pathologize evil (and thus, to excuse it), that the mental health community goes through various "fads". As evidence, one can recall the sudden rash of philandering politicians who were suddenly diagnosed as "sex addicts" in the wake of the Clinton impeachment. It wasn't their fault, you see, that they couldn't keep their pants zipped. They were addicts. It wasn't poor moral character and access to power and easy women. It was illness that made them chase skirts. In any case, I agree with both Traveler and Eowyn (and with Vort). It is simply too early to speculate whether the shooter(s?) were mentally ill- or merely evil. I did find one contrast particularly interesting: The Fox News anchorette interviewed their on-call psychologist, who immediately jumped to the mental illness angle (not surprising). He stated that this situation was at least partly societies fault because we do not spend enough money on mental health (no conflict of interest, there) and lack the legal power and authority to detain and interrogate people who say questionable things. He was absolutely certain that- in hindsight- those closest to the shooter would find clues that indicated that the man was not-right-in-the-head and that had they acted, this tragedy could have been prevented. I have a lot of issues with that line of reasoning- not the least of which is that hindsight is always 20/20. Contrast that with the former FBI agent whom she interviewed next. When asked how he could reconcile such heinous acts, the former agent replied (and I'm paraphrasing here), "There's evil in the world. Get used to it." Having stood the long watches of the night to separate the sleeping citizen from the wolves in, I am more inclined to agree with the latter than the former.