The Christmas Spirit

For as long as I can remember, Christmas has been my favorite time of the year. Houses covered in lights, decorating the family Christmas tree, the anticipation of what gifts might be waiting to be opened. The first present I can remember receiving was a red, Huffy, street bike which I spent the next few days learning painfully how to stay on. As the years went by, the gifts changed from roller-blades and clothes, to video games and DVDs. On my mission Christmas gifts consisted of books my Mission President wouldn't let me read, ties my Mission President wouldn't let me wear, and pictures of gifts that would be waiting for me when I returned home.

As is think about this I am reminded of seven-year-old Michael and his Christmas experience. The newspaper heading read “Christmas Spirit Comes to Michael,” then continued: “For five minutes on Saturday morning, Michael lived in a fantasy world that seven-year olds dream about. He spent the five most exciting minutes of his life in a toy department hauling away every item he could put into, onto, around, and through a grocery cart. And it was all for free.

“That dream-come-true was his prize for winning a contest which sought the number of lights on Salt Lake City's community Christmas tree. His guess was 9,624—one shy of the 9,625 lights on the 65-foot tree which stands on Main Street. Bespectacled, dressed in tennis shoes so he wouldn't slip, and with his two front teeth missing, Michael took the controls of a giant grocery cart he barely could see over at exactly 11:00 A.M.

“Five minutes later...his toy list included a bicycle, two road raceway sets, a Tommy gun, camping set, western rifle, a long toy snake, a dart set, an astro track space toy, and countless small cars.

“Remaining amazingly calm throughout the five minutes, Michael attracted a large crowd of shoppers who moved aside as he pushed his cart through the aisles.”

It is natural for a small child to find this exciting, possibly even the highlight of his holiday season, but our progression in life and in the gospel will bring about opportunities for far more lasting and meaningful holiday memories, particularly when we embrace the spirit of the season and are of service to those around us.

One such opportunity came to a young Bishop who had a family in his ward that had fallen on difficult times. The parents were recently divorced, and the mother, who up to this point had been the homemaker, had taken on several jobs as she struggled to keep up with the bills and raise three young children. The eldest boy had started working to help cover some of the bills, but as he was still in school and had taken over many of the responsibilities his father had once done around the house, as well as helping with his younger siblings, the hours he was able to work were few. As the Christmas season rapidly approached and the family continued to struggle to pay the mortgage and keep food in the house, it became painfully apparent that this year's holidays would be meager at best.

A few days before Christmas, the young Bishop arrived on the door-step of this small family, carrying a Christmas turkey, complete with all the trimmings, and wrapped gifts for the three children. The mother through tears of gratitude hugged her Bishop while the children ran to put the gifts under the tree. The Bishop then sat down with the family and read with them the story of the Nativity found in Luke and left with them his testimony.

In the days that followed, it was apparent that what he had brought to this home was more than a good meal; more than a few presents. His concern and act of kindness towards this family brought a spirit of love and hope. It was charity. It was not in what he had brought, but in why he had stopped by. The taste of the meal would leave and the memory of the toys be forgotten, but the Spirit that was brought into that home would remain.

An unknown author wrote:

I am the Christmas Spirit

I enter the home of poverty, causing pale-faced children to open their eyes wide in pleased wonder

I cause the miser's clutched hand to relax and thus paint a bright spot on his soul

I cause the aged to renew their youth and to laugh in the glad old way

I keep romance alive in the heart of childhood and brighten sleep with dreams woven of magic

I cause eager feet to climb dark stairways with filled baskets, leaving behind them hearts amazed at the goodness of the world

I cause the prodigal to pause a moment on his wild, wasteful way, and send to anxious love some little token that releases glad tears—tears which wash away the hard lines of sorrow

I enter dark prison cells, reminding scarred manhood of what might have been, and pointing forward to good days yet to come

I come softly into the still, white home of pain; and lips that are too weak to speak just tremble in silent, eloquent gratitude

In a thousand ways I cause the weary world to look up into the face of God, and for a little moment forget the things that are small and wretched

I am the Christmas Spirit

It is this spirit that each true Christian seeks. It is the Christ spirit. The Christmas season seems to remind everyone, whether they recognize it or not, to seek out and emulate the Savior of the world. It encourages us to be a little kinder; a little slower to anger; a little more gracious.

In ancient times, the children of Israel looked forward with hope to the time when the Son of God would be born; that he might take upon him the sins of the world. In modern times, we as a church affirm with powerful testimony that he came; that his birth was divine; his life sinless; his atoning sacrifice everlasting. The true Christmas spirit can be found in these truths, and a testimony of these truths will motivate us to spread the message to everyone.

I find it strangely fitting that Jesus' birth is celebrated in December. As the current year comes to a close and a new one begins, we are reminded to look forward with hope and to have our minds and hearts focused on the Savior.

In difficult times of stress and uncertainty it is all the more important to focus on these things. Gaining and acting on a testimony of these truths brings peace to ourselves and those around us, and gives the angelic declaration to the shepherds added meaning, “Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy...For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:10-11)

The Lord's own words to the troubled Book of Mormon prophet Nephi were similar, “Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand,...and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfill all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.” (3 Nephi 1:13)

I testify to you that He came. That He was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. That He did fulfill all that He said He would. May we remember and focus on him this season.

We're Rewriting the Bible!

The Associated Press ran a story this past week on a conservative movement to "re-translate" the Bible. The argument made by Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia.com, is that liberal professors have made either translations or interpretations of Bible scriptures and passages to serve an ever growing liberal movement and those incorrect additions to the Bible must be corrected. One of their major examples of inserted liberal views is found in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 23:34 reads, "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." The Conservative Bible Project contend that this passage, along with others, turn Jesus into "a well meaning social-worker with watered-down platitudes" and that such passages were inserted by liberal scholars, some contemporary, who "probably never looked at an actual ancient manuscript."

So who exactly are Andy Schlafly and the other contributors to the Conservative Bible Project that their view on the authenticity of certain passages of scriptures should be esteemed higher than others? Truth is...they are all amateurs at best. Not one of them holds a degree in ancient religion studies, ancient languages, translation, theology, philosophy, etc. Nothing. So how do they plan on coming up with the most accurate, not only translation, but interpretation of the most published book in the world? With the help of the public of course! Schlafly stated, "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." Apparently anyone can voice their view on the translation, interpretation, and authenticity of any passage of scripture at Conservapedia.com, and the general consensus will decide what is correct.

Are you blanking kidding me?! Let's cut through the PC bull and call this exactly what it is. This is not making scripture more understandable for people today, it's not done out of a necessity for clearer doctrine, it's a reworking of scripture to support a particular political and social agenda. There are passages of scripture that this particular group either doesn't agree with or is ignorant to be able to explain, so they must therefore be mistranslations, or mistakenly interpreted, or added by a secret liberal movement to rid the world of conservatives and their way of thinking, right? (Did my sarcasm get across there?)

One opponent to these Biblical changes is Frank Matera, a professor at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D. C., and former president of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Matera said the Bible's roots in a dizzying variety of ancient manuscripts require a lifetime of dedication to master and that, "Most Bible translations are usually done by a group of scholars, precisely so they can balance out each other." I take issue with this form of argument as well. Am I to believe that God is the author of a book, which I am suppose to believe and follow, but can only be understood by years of study of the ancient text and culture of the people who wrote it, much of which has been lost completely; a study that will take a lifetime to master; and that failure to do so will cause me to, because of a lack of understanding of certain doctrines and passages, commit various forms of sins both by commission and omission and that by having these sins on my soul, according to the majority of religions that profess to follow this book, I will be cast down to hell forever? Doesn't exactly sound like a very fair god to me!

Too much emphasis is being placed on the text rather than on the teachings! My work has an evacuation plan in case of a fire. By law the route that should be taken to quickly exit is on a laminated paper on my wall. Now, should a fire alarm go off, all employees can easily look on the map and see the quickest and safest way to exit the building. But what if I feel that isn't enough? Who came up with this map anyway? Is the route on the map really the quickest? Did the designer account for if I decided to hug the inside around the corners or take a wide turn? If I have tennis shoes on, does that affect my overall speed versus dress shoes on this particular carpet? And I wouldn't have used arrows to point the way if I were designing a map, I'd have used dashes, they look more like a person walking. Meaning, I'm burned to death because I missed the whole purpose of the map, to get me out of the blanking building!

Every Christian religion claims to follow the Bible, but the majority of them pick and choose which passages and interpretations they want to follow and believe in. They ignore the passages that conflict with their way of life; that force them to get out of their comfort zones. So many people choose a religion based on which set of morals and principles they are most comfortable with, rather than looking, studying, and praying about which one is correct. This movement to change the Bible again is no different. The Conservative Bible Project wants to change the Bible to match a set of beliefs they want to follow, rather than what they should follow. They are missing the mark. When we die and come face to face with whatever god we may believe in, I do not believe we will be asked to recite the 47th Psalm, or to quote the Torah or the Qur’an. We won't be asked if we knew the proper Hebrew or Greek interpretation of Isaiah or Acts, or if we know which language gives the most accurate translation. I believe we will be expected to account for how we lived. What did we do with what we had and knew? Did we get out of the burning building, or did we get lost in the map?

Condemning Our Youth

Terrance Jamar Graham in 2003 at the age of 16 was arrested for attempting to rob a Jacksonville, Florida restaurant while on probation for a home invasion robbery. He was found guilty and during sentencing was told by the judge, "Given your escalating pattern of criminal conduct, it is apparent to the court that you have decided that this is the way you are going to live your life and that the only thing I can do now is to try to protect the community from your actions." Even though the prosecutor in the case was not seeking life, the judge chose to sentence Graham to life without the possibility of parole.


Joe Sullivan is currently being held at a Florida penitentiary for life without the possibility of parole for raping an elderly woman in 1989. Sullivan was 13 years old at the time.

Currently, both these cases are being reviewed by the Supreme Court, together with the question of whether such sentences violate the 8th Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The United States is the only country in the world that allows such a punishment and nationwide there are 111 juveniles serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole for crimes less than murder, and of those 111, seventy-seven of them are in Florida, according to a recent study. Only 4 years ago, Roper v. Simmons struck down the use of the death penalty for juvenile offenders.

Bryan Gowdy, lawyer for Graham, told the Supreme Court such a sentence says a juvenile can be "forever unfit" for society and violates the Constitution. The lawyer for Sullivan, Brian Stevenson, said, "To say to any child of 13 that you are only fit to die in prison is cruel. And we believe that the Constitution prohibits that kind of punishment."

The debate over this issue brings up a number of questions. The obvious question is whether or not a juvenile, because of age, should be held to a level of accountability to warrant a sentence of life without parole? The other question is why Florida accounts for nearly 70% of all life-convicted juveniles?

Laurence Steinberg, a professor at Temple University, said, "I believe that kids are just less responsible then adults, and we can't hold them to the same standards of criminal culpability. They are worse at making decisions, they are more easily coerced by others, and they have more trouble controlling their impulses."

Anyone who has spent any amount of time with teenagers, or who is young enough to remember being a teenager, knows that their ability to understand and foresee the consequences of their actions just isn't there. It's not that they don't know right from wrong, but study after study has shown that a teenager's brain and ability to recognize what their actions may lead to are underdeveloped. This reasoning is used to justify not allowing juveniles to drink, vote, live on their own (with few exceptions), marry, etc. Yet when it comes to a crime, should we hold juveniles to a higher standard? A standard which carries with it more severe consequences? I remember as a teenager being convinced I was going to marry my high school sweetheart! Both of them! Thirty was old! There was no concept of bills, mortgages, and finance charges! I was naive, and so were you! I knew right from wrong, I knew there was behavior that was unacceptable in society, but I still remember doing things that I would never dream of doing today, not only because they were dangerous, but because I have a better understanding of the consequences of my actions.

I don't believe criminals, regardless of age, should get a free pass, but I do wonder about holding a child to the level of an adult. If our judicial system is in place as a deterrent, and a juvenile can't developmentally understand the extent of the consequences of their actions, how can our system be expected to completely deter them? Should our focus when it comes to juveniles be focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment?

It appears in Florida the answer is "no". Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar told the Supreme Court, "The state of Florida's interest...is first of all to punish." But the 8th Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment, and if a juvenile has not physiologically developed to the point of being able to understand the consequences of their actions, isn't to hold them to the standard of adults who do have the ability cruel? And where is the line? Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "Do you think that it categorically violates the Eighth Amendment for a 10 year old to be sentenced to life without parole?...If 10 is my judgment too early, why isn't 14, 16, or 18 years old?" Can a line be drawn or should each case be judged separately?

Ultimately I believe a child above the year of 8 should be held accountable for their actions, but their accountability should be to the level of their understanding and the severity of the crime. Life without the chance of parole seems cruel, it is unusual (once again, no other country in the world allows it), and I believe that form of punishment is missing the mark. With few exceptions, I believe a juvenile can be rehabilitated, they can be taught to behave in an acceptable manner in society, and they can be educated, in many ways easier than adults. My fear is that by keeping them locked away in our prisons with our adult criminals we aren't deterring them, but instead turning them in to the adult criminals we room them with.

Obama is Inviting Terrorist Attacks

I honestly could not have imagined our current presidential administration doing more to weaken this country until I heard what they pulled on Friday the 13th. While the President was in China, it was announced that the terrorists who mastermind the 9/11 attacks, who still remain in American custody, will be tried under our civil court system, in a court of law, in New York City. The US Attorney General, Eric Holder, under the direction of the Obama Administration, made the announcement on a Friday, a typically slow news day (not in terms of news doesn't happen, but less people pay attention to the news on Friday), while our coward President and their controlled media outlets pushed his latest nuclear weapon negotiations with Iran and his meetings with various leaders of China.

Now, I agree that the US has the most progressive and in many ways envied legal system in the world. And what a triumph it would be to prove that our legal system is capable of finding justice for the most horrific terrorist attacks on US soil! It would show the world how perfect and infallible our legal system is and that the US still has strength! And since our justice system has been set up as a means of deterring criminal behavior, surely a victory in the courts would deter future terrorist attacks, right?! Wrong! Horribly wrong! Stupidly wrong! I can't think of many more idiotic acts this current administration can pull than this one!

For starters, our justice system was indeed set up as a means of deterrence. It was never intended to be a form of punishment, despite what over-emotional judges and citizens might believe. The justice system has been about taking behavior we have deemed in our society as being inappropriate, and attaching a consequence to that behavior in the hope that an individual will choose not to commit a particular crime, and the means of deterrence varies from prison time, to probation, to death depending on the severity of the offence and the state the case is tried in. In cases where the justice system as a deterrent does not work, like with repeat offenders for example, the justice system branches out to become a means of safety and protection for the general public by determining an individual is not fit to live in society, and for the good of the people, must be confined for the remainder of his life. The justice system was designed by our founding fathers, the majority of which were practicing Christians and believed punishment belonged to God. Trying terrorists not only fails to deter others from committing similar terrorist crimes, in reality it will do the exact opposite. Our court system is backed up, it will take years to try these individuals, and once the trial does commence it can take anywhere from weeks to months to years to convict, giving the terrorists who now have the same rights as US citizens a platform to preach their twisted form of Islam, expose guarded interrogation secrets and techniques, and elevate themselves to the rest of radical Islam as heroes. This will only embolden other terrorist sects to move forward with their terrorist plans. Not to mention the fact that the accused will spend their time in facilities housing convicts from this country, many of which have a grudge against the government, and can be easily recruited. This bastardized form of Islam is far different from any other form of religion preached not only in the prison system, but in the world. Most in the prison system who convert to Christianity or traditional Islam accept the philosophy of altering their behavior to that designated by God or Allah. Even the word "Islam" means "submission". Radical Islam however does not require this; instead it uses the idea of faith as a means of recruiting individuals to support a cause, not a way of life. As a result, many of those seduced by radical Islam in the prison system are individuals Christianity and traditional Islam would not accept.

Secondly, terrorist acts are acts of war, they are not civil crimes. The 9/11 masterminds are not American citizens and therefore have no right to access to our criminal justice system, or the rights of protection, silence, or representation granted under it. Those rights are granted to citizens of the US. These individuals are criminals of war, and therefore are subject to the war crimes/military system we have set up to handle such captured offenders. That's why a separate system was created! By giving terrorists access to our civil laws and rights, we are allowing them to remain silent, to receive representation, and protection against interrogation techniques such as water boarding to make them talk. How can a judge not throw out any evidence gained by using such techniques now? Our civil justice system protects against such interrogation techniques, and any evidence gained by them is inadmissible! Not to mention that now, these terrorists and future terrorists will have the ability to use any technicality they can to declare a mistrial! I think the way we have admitted to treating terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is grounds enough for that to occur!

Now, I don't believe these terrorists will end up going free, not even this administration is that stupid, but there is a possibility they will be found not guilty and then arrested again. What's the harm in that though? Either way, they aren't going anywhere, right? True, they won't be released to kill again, but this trial is not just going to be all over the US news stations, this is going to be watched world-wide, and a not guilty ruling will completely tarnish our justice system. On top of that, how many 9/11 victim's families are going to be expected to testify against these terrorist masterminds, having to once again relive the horror of the events of that day? And all for what? So we can execute these extremists, which is the same outcome as will happen under the military justice system, but without the risks to national security or further emotional heartache.

This move by our current administration is opening the door and welcoming in all groups who wish to do us harm. Come, murder our people, and if we catch you we'll give you a place to stay, won't force you to tell us about any other plans for future attacks, won't force you to give up any other terrorist cells, and allow you to freely spread your dangerous propaganda to the world through various media outlets and your court appointed attorney. Oh, and if you're convicted, while you're awaiting your execution date which you aren't afraid of anyway since you're going to get 72 virgins in heaven, why don't you convert some of your fellow inmates to radical Islam so that when the weapons smuggler, bank robber, and drug trafficker with all their various connections get out, they can start making plans to attack us. And when you are executed, those who believe as you do will speak of your name in reverence, as a martyr for the cause.

Killing is Easy?

The world watched this week as John Allen Muhammad, also known as the DC Sniper, was executed... oh wait, that's right, the world wasn't watching.  In fact, there was very little coverage on it.  I heard more about the possible breakup of Aerosmith this week than I did about the execution of a man who cowardly killed 10 people in one of the most publicized crimes of 2002.  I didn't hear about any anti-death penalty protests, no memorial pieces about the victims, no possible "jihad" links, nothing other than the Beltway sniper was going to be executed on November 10, 2009.  Granted, the execution did take place in Virginia, which still holds to certain conservative view points, but I wondered if the reason why I didn't hear very much about it was that we as a nation don't care.  I don't believe the lack of attention was due to a feeling of vengeance that needed to be carried out, if that were the case the media would have paraded the fact that the execution was taking place a mere 7 years or so after the murders were committed.  Perhaps we feel that "justice" was being carried out, proof that the legal system works, that bad guys are apprehended and punished?  But if that were the case, wouldn't the media play that up aswell?  I find it hard to believe the Obama administration wouldn't have jumped at the chance to somehow attribute this great symbol of American justice to their "savior president".

No, I think it is because we don't care.  Death is devastating when it happens to a loved one, tragic when it happens to an acquaintance, unfortunate when it occurs in our town, and just another story when it happens in another state.  We don't care about death, or famine, or starving children, or saving the whales, or any of it, and don't start getting on your high horses saying that you do!  Oh sure, we watch the commercials asking us to "save the children" and think how sad it is for them, we wonder how a wife will get by when her husband is killed by a drunk driver, we as a nation kept our American Flags up for about a year after 9/11, but when it comes down to action most people don't donate to feed starving refugees in foreign countries, we don't seek out and give aid to the mourning widow, and drive around your neighborhood and see how many American Flags are still waving proudly.

The death penalty in particular use to be a hot-button topic, and whenever a death sentence was carried out it was a big deal.  For decades the American people fought in nearly every state over the moral decency, correctness, and appropriateness of the death penalty.  The battles have led to many states outlawing certain forms of capitol punishment, others changing the crimes which could warrant the death penalty, and still others outlawing it altogether.  Prisoners now must be deemed physically well enough to be executed, efforts have been made to make the form of execution less painful, and the condemned have been granted more ways of postponing their sentenced dates.  Cases of wrongful execution for years fed the fire, causing many to question not only the practice of capitol punishment, but the entire legal system and its ability to effectively detour, resolve, and punish.

It was also announced this week that the accused 9/11 masterminds would be heading to New York City for trial, and that the death penalty was going to be sought.  Again, I caught this story as a small news spot in the Associated Press, I didn't see it on the news or hear it on the radio, and no one seems to be talking about it.  Have we become so desensitized as a people that the idea of taking an individual's life, even as punishment, isn't a big deal?

I personally am in favor of the death penalty in cases of murder.  I don't have this view point out of a sense of revenge.  It doesn't bring the deceased back, and I don't believe it causes any kind of cosmic balance within the universe.  I am in favor of the death penalty as a form of mercy, so that the convicted might have a chance in the hereafter by willfully atoning for their crime/sin, a sin which in my opinion is the most difficult to overcome.  I believe it is a far greater punishment to allow an individual who commits murder to live out their life and die without being able to perform restitution for their sin, thus leaving that debt unpaid once they come to judgement.

Despite this personal belief, shouldn't it still be a difficult thing to kill another person?  The time of their probation is being ended!  I've seen dead bodies, it's a humbling experience.  It is a reminder of how fragile life is, and how easily it can be over.  I wonder if our indifference is because all it is to us is an article in a paper?  I wonder how we would feel if we were the ones pushing the button, pulling the level, carrying out the act?  Whether our motives be for revenge, justice, or mercy, I wonder if our feelings on capitol punishment would change if the person's life, even the most vile of individual, were in our hands?

Euthanizing Children

Dr. Jack Kevorkian became both famous and infamous for his stance on what he termed as physician-assisted suicide.  During the years of 1999-2007, Dr. Kevorkian served 8 years of a 10-to-25 year prison term after being convicted of second-degree murder for the death of Thomas Youk, a 52 year old man who was suffering from the final stages of ALS.  Although Dr. Kevorkian claims to have assisted in at least 130 patient suicides, during this procedure, Dr. Kevorkian chose to not only videotape the process, but inject the needle himself (in the past he had merely shown the patients how to carry this out, and they then performed the injections).

While some people argue 8 years in prison is hardly enough time served for murder, others argue no time should have been served at all, believing as Dr. Kevorkian does that "dying is not a crime."(1)  Dr. Kevorkian in 2008 while speaking to nearly 5,000 students at the University of Florida stated, "My aim was to end suffering. It's got to be decriminalized." (2)

Regardless of your take on voluntary euthanasia, there is no denying the turning point the case brought to the medical field and to the way we in the US view medical care.  Since then, the debate over an individual's rights to be taken off of life support and the rights of one's family to remove them from life support have been further debated.  The medical marajuana push has picked up steam and in some states become legal, the reason being to ease the pain of those suffering from certain illnesses and diseases.  It does seem like people today have moved from "surviving at all costs" to "living only if I can really live."

In London, England today, what could possibly be the next chapter in the euthanasia debate is being presented to the British courts.

A mother and father, whom both due to a court order cannot be named, are fighting, literally, over the life of their one-year old child.  The child, known as RB, suffers from a severe medical condition known as congenital myasthenic syndrome or CMS.  There are three different types of CMS and despite testing it is not known which type the child has.  All forms of CMS have varying degrees of respitory issues, muscular weakness, including the muscles in the eyes and throat, reduced mobility, and in some cases severe curvature of the spine, and further, it is a progressive disease.  The mother, siding with doctors at the hospital where the child is currently located, believes that it is in the best interest of the child to diconnect the respirator and allow the child to die, while the father believes the child should receive further treatment in the hope that it can lead some sort of life.

Lawyers for the hospital said in court today that the child's life is "miserable, sad and pitiful," and that his lungs continue to fill up with fluid every few hours -- giving him the sensation of choking -- and that doctors then must suction the fluid out causing the child additional pain.  So far the child has been taken off respirators three times.  The first time he was able to breathe on his own for 40 minutes, the second time for 30 minutes, and the third time for only 5 minutes.

Lawyers for the father however contest that the child can play and recognize his parents and plan to show videotape proving that he is aware of and responds to the world around himself.  According to The Mayo Clinic's Web site, "different forms of CMS vary widely in their symptoms, from mild to severely disabling. With accurate diagnosis and appropriate therapy, even potentially fatal forms can usually be treated successfully."

The case just got underway today and will most likely take some time to be decided.  So far an independent doctor has been asked to examine the child and determine if a tracheostomy would help the baby to breathe better.  His determination could be the catalyst for either side of the battle.

As I think about not only the precedent the decision in this case could set, (remember, this child is a year old, not a newborn) and about what these two parents, both of whom I believe are doing what they feel is best for their child, I wonder what I would do in this situation.  No doubt, their are thousands of parents who raise children with all forms of physical and mental disabilities and illnesses, despite the difficulties, the trials, and the hardships.  But I also cannot imagine the heartbreak of a parent having to watch their child suffer incredible pain their entire lives.  And then there's the issue of the parents themselves and their own motives.  Would my own selfish feelings or maybe even resentment of a life devoted so intensely to my child sway my decision?  Should it even be legal to euthanize your child, regardless of the physical or mental condition they are born with?  And who decides?  Doctors?  Parents only?  Both?  There are medical advancements everyday, who's to say the next one won't be the breakthrough needed to help your child?

Personally, I know a number of couples with children that require additional work and effort because of their physical and mental state.  Some of those children are older, in their thirties and forties and will always need to rely on their parents, some are my age, some are newborns.  Some are constantly in severe physical pain, and will be, barring a medical breakthrough, for their entire lives.  As I've watched those parents, their interactions with their children, and their children's interactions with them, I know neither one could imagine life without the other, and whatever extra trials they have had to endure, they rejoice in having their family.  I also am aware of a staggering number of children whose family life has only compounded their personal pain and struggles from diseases, illnesses, and physical and mental handicaps.

If it were your child, what would be the "right thing"?  What would be your motivations?  Mercy?  Perhaps selfishness masked as mercy?  Despite being stewards and guardians of our children, do we have the right to decide whether their life will be worth living?



1 Betzold, Michel,"Appointment with Doctor Death" Troy, MI: Momentum Books 1996
2 "News - - Gainesville.com". Gainesville.com

Debating the God Problem

I recently listened to a discourse given by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and professor at Cambridge University, as well as the author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. Professor Dawkins has been at the forefront of evolutionary science, helping to steer it into the 21^st century, and in recent years has become an outspoken critic of religion, Intelligent Design or Creationism, and a leading figure in the New Atheism.

The discourse was intended to encourage all atheists to become more vocal, outspoken, and adopt a form of “militant atheism” as he put it, in order to fight the incursion of religion, and Theism in general, into politics and science. Throughout the discourse Professor Dawkins mixed theories, hypothesis, and accepted facts of the scientific, in particular the evolutionary science, communities with blanket statements of religion and nuclear examples of religious individuals in an attempt to mock, discredit, and trivialize not only faith, but any who have it. At one point Professor Dawkins poses the question, “Is religion correlated with IQ?” and theorizes that individuals of higher intelligence, meaning, higher IQ's and levels of education, are less likely to be religious. His not so subtle take on the matter is that the higher one's IQ, the less likely they are to believe in the tooth-fairy, unicorns, and God. The more subtle inference to this conclusion would be that those of lower intelligence and levels of education are more likely to believe in supernatural things such as revelation and faith rather than “evidence”.

Now, to be fair, the majority of those who have spoken out against theories such as evolution and in favor of theories of Creationism or Natural Design, have done so in a manner similar to how Professor Dawkins attacks religion. The bases of the Creationist's reasoning for the existence of a Creator is in the statistical improbability of human evolution from primordial ooze to man, that is, that the probability is so small, the only other explanation is that man was created by God. This reasoning however is not only offensive to the logical mind of a scientist, but should be offensive to the believer in a god. The fact of the matter is that no matter how improbable a situation, if there is even the smallest of chances it could happen, with enough time, it will happen. What are the odds of winning the lottery? Pretty slim, right? Yet there are winners, every year! In the theory of evolution, scientists simply contest that it took hundreds of billions of years for everything to fall into place. As for a believer in God or a Creator goes, to reason that because evolution is statistically improbable, God must be real, is like reasoning that because I can't find my car, it must have been taken by aliens. The exclusion of the one doesn't necessarily make the other true. Any true believer in God should understand and accept that such a belief must be based on faith. If you can reason your way in to God, you can reason your way out of God.

Professor Dawkins chose to respond to the issue of statistical improbability of evolution in this way, “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself. And that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do, like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers, favor our side in a war, disapprove of our sex lives, and so on. Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve, and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex, thereby simply compounding the problem.”

With the exception of Professor Dawkins' first sentence, I believe this conclusion to be not only inherently flawed, but extraordinarily arrogant. Since the birth of science, if there is one thing that has been universal, it is that there is more to be discovered. Theories held as facts just fifty years ago have been proven today to have been wrong! A thousand years ago we knew that the sun was the center of the universe; six hundred years ago we knew that the earth was flat; roughly one hundred years ago we knew that atoms were the smallest forms of molecules possible; and today we know that human evolution is fact and that there is no being who could possibly be greater, or more complex, than us. Ultimately, science is in search of truth; of things as they are. Isn't that what religion is? Alright, maybe that isn't what religion has become, but isn't that what religion was meant to be? An explanation or set of doctrines and teachings to instruct us on things as they are? And if science and religion are both in search of discovering things as they are, shouldn't they be coming to the same conclusions?

I do, however, agree with Professor Dawkins' first sentence. “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself.” It's too bad that rather than expounding on the meaning of this sentence, Professor Dawkins chooses to turn back to mocking and making light of religious beliefs and teachings. If I may, what Professor Dawkins should have said is this:

If there were a being with the intelligence, power, and ability to create not only beings as complex and diverse as humans, but all manner of life upon the earth from animal life, to insects, to plant and vegetation, and if such a being were knowledgeable and capable enough to create a sphere upon which such creatures could reside with the proper levels of breathable air, food and water, and the ability to multiply within their own species, and if such a being were further able to create an entire system wherein such a sphere, along with other spheres, would rotate and travel not only on its own axis but also by way of gravitational pull and centrifugal force around a massive source of light and warmth thus providing life to the aforementioned inhabited sphere, without getting too close to the source of warmth and light to burn up nor too far away to freeze, and if there were such a being who could further duplicate this process of creating planetary systems over and over and over, that such a being would have no concern whatsoever for a race of creatures, let alone one individual creature, of such inferior intelligence, power, and abilities, regardless of whether or not they are the creation of his own hands. Think of the amount of care we humans have for nanobes, nanoarchaeums, and eukaryotes (a few of the smallest microorganisms discovered on earth). The majority of the world doesn't even know they exist, let alone care about what they are, what they do, or what happens to them. The reason being isn't because they are small, we know about viruses and bacteria and they are small, the reason we don't care or know about these microorganisms is because they don't effect us in any way, our level of intelligence is so much superior to theirs, and our own abilities surpass theirs to such an extent, that they are to us, completely and totally insignificant. Finally, such a being both powerful and intelligent enough to have created everything that is, would not need constant reminders and reassurances, or praise and worship, from such inferior beings as us. He would know that He is God, and what not need us to acknowledge it.

This is what Professor Dawkins meant by “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself.” And to be perfectly honest, I agree with the statement. I see no reason such a being would even know about us...unless, He, despite all His power and intelligence, abilities and grandeur, has a vested interest in us. Unless we are more than another creation among billions. Unless He created us for a specific purpose which He desires that we achieve. And, unless He still has the ability to care, to love, and to mourn. There must be, still, an attachment between such a Deity, and us. Such a bond must be stronger than Maker to creation, and more profound than merely God to man. And the end result must be greater and more purposeful than an eternity of giving praise and adoration, even if it is in paradise! For such a being as God to care about us, we must be meant for more than what we currently are, and there must be a reason, no doubt tied to this destiny, for why we are here. It is in our nature as humans to believe in something greater than us, to hope that there is a purpose to our lives, and somehow, I believe, not even the atheists believe this life is the end. It is at this juncture that science must leave us, for it is both unable and unwilling to search in this realm any further. To faith we must turn, and to religion, it being the other great seeker of truth.

And so, let the various religions of the world stand and be counted. Can any provide doctrine and teachings necessary to answer the God problem? Are there any which see beyond the limited view of this world alone? Is there one that can answer the age old questions, and ultimately reveal our true nature, as well as God's; where did we come from? why are we here? and where are we going? Any religion that cannot satisfactorily answer these questions does not have a leg to stand on! Any religion that denies either the power and intelligence or mercy and love a being such as God would of necessity possess cannot be the one that teaches truth! Any religion or doctrine that has imagined to itself a God without body parts or passions has created a being without the ability to move, to act, to love, or to care and therefore does not have the ability to save itself, let alone anyone else!

I see no other explanation to the God problem than this, that God is a physical being fully possessive of emotion, that He has attained to a level of intelligence and power far greater than anything we can at this time imagine, that we are tied to Him, not merely as Creator to man, but as Parent to child, and that it is this relationship that not only explains his attention to us but the possibilities of our existence. And further, that God is not concerned with only our planet and the inhabitants thereof, but of all His creations in what, because of the magnitude of his knowledge and power, must be literally worlds without number.

In all of my studies, and they have been many, from the Jewish to the Judea o-Christian, from Hindu to Muslim, and from Buddhist to Atheist, I have found no religion which can not only resolve the God problem, but expound on every aspect of it, other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is on this conclusion that I rest, and where the world must investigate and judge for itself. Science cannot prove it, reason cannot justify it, there is only faith which can confirm it. I invite everyone to visit www.mormon.org and decide for themselves.

Protecting You from Yourself - Part 2: Protection vs Control

In 1993, Dennis Leary released “No Cure for Cancer”, a stand-up comedy album, where he sarcastically poses the question in regards to smoking laws, “What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out, is that the rule now? Huh?”

Although smoking is still a legal act in the United States, since Dennis Leary posed his query, it has been demonized even further, taxed, and banned in various forms throughout every state in various degrees.

Now, I am not a smoker, I don't enjoy cigarette smoke, I don't want the bad breath, yellow fingers, to smell like an ash tray, or to get a sore throat like breathing it in gives me. I certainly don't want to become addicted to nicotine, and I've got enough expensive hobbies as it is without shelling out the price of a pack of cigarettes. I don't find it cool, attractive, or tough to walk around with one sticking out of your mouth or held in your hand and I admit to turning my nose up when I get a whiff of it. I believe regularly smoking cigarettes to be bad for your health, to damage your lungs, and to, depending on your body, increase your risk of certain types of cancer.

This is my opinion, and it is for these reasons that I don't smoke. However, I will be the first person to stand up for all you smokers and your rights to participate in a perfectly legal act. I will be the first, because I believe in freedom of choice and accountability for ones own actions.

I am perfectly aware that the idea of standing up for “smoker's rights” is viewed by many to be irresponsible, unintelligent, and ignorant to the “facts”. I must respectfully disagree. For decades now, smoking has been attacked, demonized, vilified, and turned into something criminals and people with no willpower or self-control get involved in. We have been bombarded with research, facts, and images of how smoking, especially second hand, kills. The tobacco companies themselves have certainly not helped their public image much throughout the years between corrupt business and ethical practices and blatantly targeting youth in the hope of acquiring life long customers. But if there is going to be open debate here in regards to the right to smoke, we need to cut through the crap, and be honest about what both sides have been doing. And why is it even important to have a debate on “smoker's rights”? Remember, I don't smoke, but I don't want someone or some group stopping me from doing something that I do enjoy because they feel they know what is best for me.

I doubt that a majority of people who smoke regularly today don't realize it's bad for their health. In fact, we've all known it isn't healthy for quite some time. Come on, you are putting a stick of fire in your mouth and sucking it into your lungs! Nobody thinks they are full of Vitamin-C.

But the issue at hand isn't whether smoking is bad for you or not, the issue is whether or not another person or group has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in regards to my body. Do people have the right to control my behavior? Do they have the right to take away my ability to make a wrong choice? There are consequences to every decision, but in our zeal to rid the world of some of those consequences, are we also removing our ability to choose?Where is the line between laws that are in place for my protection, and laws which are designed to control my behavior? What about behavior with consequences that affect only myself?

And this is where the crap of the anti-smoking side comes in to play. Let's make sure something is perfectly clear here, smoking does not kill. Smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking can kill, it can cause cancer. Think about it! If cigarettes killed then every person who has ever smoked one or inhaled second hand smoke in any degree should be either dead or dying. And if cigarettes caused cancer, then every person who has ever smoked or inhaled someone's second hand smoke in any degree should have it. The fact of the matter is that we all know someone who smoked for fifty something years, lived a full life, never got cancer, and died of natural causes.

Now, you're thinking, “Oh, you're just playing with words!” What I am doing is explaining things as they are, you just don't like it because you've lived your entire life hearing how cigarettes do kill and do cause cancer, rather than can kill and can cause cancer, a distinction in words the anti-smoking side has been all too happy to ignore.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the information we've all heard on the effects of cigarette smoke, particularly second hand smoke, comes from a late 1992 report by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which labeled “environmental tobacco smoke” (ETS) a class A carcinogen that caused approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers per year(1). The tobacco industry and its allies filed suit against the report in North Carolina in 1998, and won. The judge ruled that the EPA had made serious procedural errors and had “cherry-picked” its data to reach a preordained conclusion (they announced their findings before the tests were performed). The EPA also used a “confidence interval” of 90 percent in calculating the risk of increased lung cancer rather than the more common and far more stringent 95 percent(2). Why is that significant? The lower the standard, the more statistically significant one can make their findings seem. Does 5 percent really make a difference? When you are applying a statistic to 300 million people (US population) 5 percent makes a huge difference. Since the 1992 EPA report was released, four major ETS studies have been completed, two found no evidence that ETS increased cancer risk, on found week evidence, and only one found strong evidence. When it comes down to it, the claim that ETS seriously threatens the health of the general public, and more specifically causes cancer, is unproven at best.

What we have here is not a movement to protect the public, but rather an attempt to control behavior according to a specific view point. Person A doesn't like cigarettes or cigarette smoke, therefore Person B can't do it. Or, let's go a step further. Person A is allergic to cigarette smoke, therefore Person B can't do it. I can't wait until an epileptic visiting Las Vegas sues the city because all the flashing lights caused a seizure.

The Associate Press last month reported that New York City's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg's, next move in his crusade against tobacco is to ban smoking in all of New York City's 1700 parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities, including the city's 14 miles of beach. New York City's Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said that New Yorker's shouldn't have to breathe cigarette smoke, even outside, and children shouldn't even have to see people smoking(3).

Are you kidding me?! On my list of horrible things my children shouldn't have to see, people smoking cigarettes isn't even close to being found. I tend to save those lists for things like murder and rape. I'm curious the number of adults seeing therapists for their traumatic scars from viewing people smoking when they were little. If it wasn't right for the tobacco industry to go after our kids with ads like “Joe Camel”, then how is it right for the anti-tobacco industry to do the same thing to further their agenda? They are trying to protect us...right? You want to protect me from something? Protect me from doctors! Medical error accounts for approximately 250,000 deaths a year in the US(4).

1 Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.

2 United States Federal Court Decision, Flue-cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, el al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al, July 17, 1998

3 Sara Kugler, NYC wants to make parks smoke-free, Associated Press, Sept. 14, 2009

4 Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield, John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health

Protecting You From Yourself: Part 1 - People are Dumb

As I've read some of the events going on throughout the world today, I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Men in Black. Tommy Lee Jones' character, Kay, speaking to Will Smith's character says, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

This idea of the individual being intelligent, but once grouped with the masses, becoming ignorant, irrational, and fearful appears to be evident throughout the world. A person of average intelligence (which by definition should be the majority of the population) knows that wearing a seatbelt can save their lives in an automobile accident. Yet in 2008, in 55% of all automobile fatalities the victim was not wearing a seatbelt1. If you asked the average individual whether regularly smoking cigarettes was harmful to their health, they would say, “Yes.” Yet each year nearly 490,000 people in the US die from tobacco related deaths2. Heck, the individual even knows not to walk in the middle of the street, but for some reason we forget that rule whenever we get in proximity of a Wal-Mart.

In an effort lower the fatality rate in these examples, our elected leaders and those whom they appoint have enacted laws from ticketing motorists who don't wear their seat belts to Surgeon General Warnings on tobacco products.

It all seems like a good idea. The problem is that somewhere along the way, the idea of, “If people are informed, they will make different choices” became, “If people will not protect themselves, somebody must do it for them”.

Case in point, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is planning on introducing legislation this fall that will impose an added tax on retailers on all sugary beverages3. Under California law, he would need voter approval to impose a tax on individual cans of soda and other kinds of sugary juice, but he only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to tax the retailers, an approval he is expected to get.

And what is the Mayor's reason for the tax levy? A UCLA study has recently been released showing a link between soda and obesity in California. The researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27% more likely to be obese than those who don't. The study also showed that soda consumption is one of the causes of the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem.

Of course, such a tax is not going to simply be paid by the soda/sugary drink retailers. They will pass their additional costs onto the consumer, a move Mayor Newsom not only has to know, but is most likely counting on, the hope being that if the consumer has to pay more for the product, their consumption of it will change. A small rise in price, consumption might go down a little, a high rise in price, consumption may cease altogether.

The city attorney's office has warned Mayor Newsom that he will most likely be sued if he does push through such a tax.

"We know we'll be sued," Mayor Newsom said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

Director of San Francisco's Department of Public Health, Mitch Katz, said a study conducted over the past nine months showed a clear link between soda consumption and an increased burden on the public health system. Mr. Katz did not, however, give a dollar amount to the burden. He went on to say he considers a soda fee an incremental step, and that other sugary foods could someday have a surcharge as well.

"It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices...," he said.

I ask, “make the right choices” according to whose barometer? And let’s not be naive and assume this is going to end with a small tax and therefore a small increase in prices. Mayor Newsom has implied this “war on sugar” is the new “war on tobacco”, and the anti-sugar movement is not going to rest until they have demonized the behavior to the point that they can remove sugary drinks from shelves.

Now, I’m not an avid soda/sugary drink consumer. I might have one soda a week at the most, and that’s only if I go out to eat, so in all reality a jump in the cost of sodas and other sugary beverages is not really going to affect me. However, the premise that something like this sets does affect me, directly. This notion, that if I don’t make the “right choice” then it will be made for me, I find to be appalling. How long will it take before something I do enjoy is attacked, taxed, and ultimately removed as an option? All under the guise of being “for the greater good” or that “the end justifies the means” or any other facade we use to placate our conscious from doing something which is wrong.

One of the defining characteristics that citizens of the US cling to is the idea of a “freedom of choice”. We are free to choose our religion, our politics, and professions; to voice our opinions both verbally and through writing; to think and to feel according to the dictates of our own conscious. There may be consequences, good or bad, attached to our decisions, but isn’t that the beauty of our system? We have been given the opportunity to fail! We have the inalienable right to be wrong! If drinking sugary drinks makes me obese and I decide that I am going to continue to drink them, then haven’t I made my decision? Haven’t I accepted my consequence of never having the physique of an underwear model? Haven’t I exercised my “freedom of choice”? But because my choice isn’t what another might choose I’m no longer going to be given the option?

Eating a pound of bacon a day probably isn’t the greatest thing for my heart and health in general, so is my bacon consumption going to be attacked one day? Am I going to be rationed to a pound a week? a month? a year? It sounds ridiculous, and it should, unfortunately in a world where you are too dumb to govern yourself, there will always be others willing to do it for you.



1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment. There are around 200 million vehicles on US roads today and around 6 million accidents each year. Your chances of having an automobile accident sometime in your life is fairly high and 1 in 150 chances that your accident will be a fatality accident, and of those unfortunate fatality accidents, over half of those involved could have been saved if they had only wore their seatbelt.
2 Institute of Medicine, 2007
3 Heather Knight, Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas, SFGate, Sept. 18, 2009