You know who you are!

I'm gonna say something here and I don't care who reads it or what the hell they're gonna think of me...

ANY man who throws away a beautiful wife and some of the most amazing children that I have ever seen God bless ANYONE with, who mistreats the woman that he had been married to for so long, is a TOTAL BASTARD.

I admit that my bout with bipolar made me make life a living hell for those closest to me, especially my former wife and I'll always regret that... but even in the darkest times of that abyss I was NOT the asshole that some men seem determined to be. Men who even seem PROUD to be such assholes!

Guys, if God has given you a wonderful wife and such beautiful and smart children and you not only throw that away but treat them THAT bad, well... you not only NEVER deserved to be so blessed to begin with, you SHOULD be made to spend the rest of your miserable pathetic excuse of a life ALONE and REJECTED... because you brought it upon yourself, you f-cking piece of maggot-ridden garbage!!!

(And that's honestly the nicest epithet that I can come up with for a certain someone who I know is a regular reader of this blog.)

Awright... "Beast Mode" off.

Read More

Catholic sex abuse case demands that priests be allowed to marry

This post may get a whole lotta folks mad at me, but I don't care. It needs to be said...

You've probably heard by now that the Los Angeles diocese of the Roman Catholic Church is paying $660 million to keep from going to court over long-standing allegations of sexual abuse of children by its priests.

This could have been avoided if the Catholic Church had long ago put an end to its insane policy that forbids its clergy to marry.

The Catholic Church believes that priests and nuns should be "married" to the church. That if the hearts and minds of its clergy are fully devoted to serving the Church, that this will provide an adequate substitute for the natural sex drive that almost all of us have. The implication is that if its priests and nuns are "tempted by the flesh" enough to desire sexual stimulation, then they "obviously" are not seeking purity and holiness enough.

The result is Lord only knows how many generations of men who are emotionally arrested as adolescents and remain that way for the rest of their lives, with no understanding of how to manage their natural instincts. So it is that many of them are compelled by their vows - from consequence if not from policy - to satisfy their sexual drive however they can.

That's not an excuse for these priests' behavior. But something sure as the world precipitated it.

All of this from the horrible and very mistaken belief that sex - and everything associated with it - is sinful by nature.

There is nothing sinful about sex, when it is expressed as God intended it. Within the confines of marriage between husband and wife, sex is not just a means of pleasure and relieving of natural drives: sex becomes an act of worship. Between husband and wife who are united in the eyes of God, sex is a holy and beautiful means of expressing not only love for each other, but love for the One who created them.

The apostle Paul spoke quite a bit about this in 1st Corinthians. To those who feel this need, then "they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion", Paul wrote. Ideally, marriage is supposed to be about much more than "the sex". In marriage as God designed it, sex is just one way of expressing love, rather than what defines love. But in the circles of this world, sex is what physically unites man and woman into something greater than the sum of the parts. So it is that marriage of man and woman is an illustration on this earth of the union, the "marriage", between Chris and His bride, the church (the church as in all who belong to Him).

The Catholic policy of forbidding priests and nuns the right to marry not only denies them the satisfying of physical nature, but of the spiritual nature also. The Catholic Church is forcing them to cut themselves off from what is, in the proper context, a magnificent intimate knowledge of God through the beautiful mystery of marriage.

It's like this: just about all of us, at some point in our lives, want to get laid. It's a design feature of God's engineering to keep the human race going. Being compelled to ignore it, for whatever reason, just doesn't work. It leads to very bad things happening, like priests molesting little kids.

On this point it would be a better thing to concede to human nature per God's instructions, and not the screwy thinking of mere men. Let the priests and nuns marry so that they can enjoy all the deep, passionate, hot-blooded sex that they want, just as God meant it to be part of marriage.

And for whatever it's worth, the priests who squirmed their way out of meeting real justice in this case should be strung up from the nearest telephone pole by their circular reproductive units. With piano wire.

Read More

Comments temporarily for registered users only

Because of some apparent abuse on the part of a suspected individual on the "The Ronfather" post, I am temporarily turning off anonymous comments. You must be registered with Blogger in order to leave comments at the present time. I'm hoping to lift this and return to normal commenting - which you can choose to be anonymous or not - as soon as possible.

EDIT 5-03-2007 1:03 a.m. EST: Normal commenting has been restored.

Read More

Politicians exploiting Virginia Tech in the name of mental illness

"President Bush says he has directed federal officials to conduct a national inquiry into how to prevent violence by dangerously unstable people."

He can start with those who want the war in Iraq because as Einstein put it: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".

For me, the red flags started going up yesterday when Senator Charles Schumer from New York said that he wanted mental health workers to report to the federal government on who is "mentally ill" for the express purpose of the feds denying them the right to own a gun.

For one thing, this is a knee-jerk reaction. For another, the existing gun laws are adequate already... maybe too adequate. For yet another, no matter how much law gets passed, eventually someone is going to break it and cause something like the incident at Virginia Tech to happen. Sorry to say this, but there can be no guarantees in life and you certainly can't expect... and shouldn't even want... the government to try to protect you from everything.

But most of all: should we really want politicians to be the ones defining what "mental illness" is? Seung-Hui Cho certainly had problems that should have discouraged him from having ready access to firearms. But I've come to know many people who although they have to take anti-depressants and other medication to function day to day, they are as healthy and fit as you or me (okay, I'll admit that some have questioned my own soundness especially after my first school board campaign commercial, but I digress...). A lot of these people show much more sense and compassion than many who have never had to take medications for depression and other conditions. Are they going to be denied a permit to have a gun for self-defense because just on the basis of being prescribed these drugs, the government declares them "mentally unfit"?

And if so, then where will it stop? Where can it stop? Because if government has the power to deny a basic right because it has the authority to declare someone a "mental invalid", then there is nothing to keep it from defining that condition in any way that it sees fit. Would political dissent be grounds for branding someone mentally unstable? Hell, there are apparent cases where dissenters have been denied the right to travel in this country: why wouldn't the federal government stop there and insist that they not be allowed the means of self-defense, either, because it declares these people's "behavior" to be symptomatic of mental illness?

What Bush and Schumer and too many other politicians are suggesting in the wake of the Virginia Tech slayings, is a potential start on the road to the gulags. Remember how back in the day in America we heard about how dissidents were declared "mentally ill" and sent off to Siberia for "treatment" for the next forty years? Apart from physical relocation (for now), how was that different from what a lot of politicians here are wanting?

Think that federal government wouldn't ever practice such gross abuse? Remember: President Bush wants mandatory mental health screening of every schoolchild in America... to say nothing of his wanting to medicate them against the wishes of the children's parents and physicians. This was apparently being promoted at the behest of the pharmaceutical industry: the same industry that talked Governor Rick Perry into mandating an uncertain cancer vaccine on every girl in Texas. That came soon after after the vaccine's manufacturer Merck gave Perry a substantial political contribution. If they can sell out principles for money, they can sell them out for power, too.

It's like this: if the government can declare huge portions of the population "mentally unfit" to own firearms, then there is nothing preventing the government from defining "mental illness" in whatever way it believes necessary. Anyone and everyone can be deemed mentally "unsound" for the most ridiculous of reasons. Inevitably, a person will have to produce official documentation showing that he or she is sane, instead of it being determined that they are unhealthy based on prior behavior. So it will be that only the "super sane" will be authorized to own firearms by the government. Anyone want to take a guess at how many of those there will be?

Well, it won't be very many. And they will be far too few in numbers to be an adequate bulwark against the government deciding that it needs even more power.

Tell me again how this doesn't sound like we're headed to Siberia, comrade.

Read More