The heart knoweth its own bitterness; and a stranger doth not intermeddle with its joy.Everyone has his own emotional and spiritual pain thresholds. One person endures the loss of his job, his family, and his health, and carries on. Another person loses an illusion and collapses into substance abuse and cycles of self destruction. We can see who is stronger, but who is to say who suffers the most? Only God can really see the heart; only He knows the real depth and cause of our wounds. Thankfully, He also knows what will bring us the greatest joy. No one else does.
No One Knows
No one knows the troubles I've seen. I believe that's the essense of what Solomon meant by Proverbs 14:10.
In the Interests of Sensitivity
Over the last twenty years there have been a lot of pushes for name
changes in the interest of sensitivity to Native Americans, even when
the Native Americans in question hadn’t even realized that they ought to
be feeling sensitive. There’s the Redskins, the Seminoles, the Chiefs,
etc. If we’re really concerned with doing the right thing here, we can’t
stop with sports teams. Naming a team after an Indian tribe or
archetype is supposed to be something of a complement.
(BTW, why won’t anyone stand up for all those poor North Carolina Renos and Dumonts suffering under the oppression of Duke University and their Blue Devils!?)
A few more names I think we should seriously consider changing:
(BTW, why won’t anyone stand up for all those poor North Carolina Renos and Dumonts suffering under the oppression of Duke University and their Blue Devils!?)
A few more names I think we should seriously consider changing:
- Alabama
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Illinois
- Sioux City
- Iowa
- North and South Dakota
- Utah
- Saskatchewan
- Minnesota
- Indiana (!!!)
- Cheyenne
The Ancient Roots of Palestine and Palestinians
Someone recently asked, “If ‘Palestine’ is such an ancient country why is it not mentioned in ancient history?”
Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.
That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.
The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.
Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.
There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people
Actually it is. The same word is found all through the Old Testament, so obviously it was mentioned in the histories of at least one ancient people. Palestine is an English corruption of a Latin corruption of Pilishti, which we more commonly know from the Bible as Philistine.
That kind of corruption happens with words all the time. Think of Jesus, which came from Iesus, which came from Yeshua. Or Jay, which came from Jayco, which came from Iago, which came from Yaakov.
The Philistines (not the Palestinians) would have a prior claim to part of the land of Israel, if it weren’t for that inconvenient thing about God taking the land away from the Philistines and Canaanites and giving it to the Israelites. The modern Palestinians are just Arabs who happen to live within a political boundary once bearing that name, and are not actually related to the ancient Philistines at all.
Once upon a time, Jews, who lived in the territory known as Palestine before it became the State of Israel, were known as Palestinians, but few of the people we now call Palestinians would claim them as ancestors.
There doesn’t appear to be an actual ethnic group of people that anyone can accurately call “Palestinians.” It’s a little like claiming to be of the Pennsylvanian race. There are Pennsylvanians, but they’re only called that because they live in Pennsylvania, not because they’re really a distinctive race of people
Pride, Fear, & Polygamophobia
Eloquent as ever, Mizazeez wrote,
Our culture’s monogamous, polygamophobic dogma relieves wives of a large part of this battle. It tells them that it is OK to surrender to Jezebel in this one area. “It’s OK to rule your husband in this way,” it says, “because you’re equal.” Never mind the inherent contradiction of ruling an equal, and never mind that this one surrender gives the enemy a beachhead by which he can conquer the whole woman. Likewise, it tells men that they are perverts or domineering control freaks if they ever feel the slightest desire for another woman or if they entertain even a thought that the other woman might be a good addition to his family. Wives build a fortress of pride and indignation around this little kingdom and hold it over their husbands’ heads, constantly threatening and manipulating.
There are three evidences that this jealously guarded fortress is actually territory surrendered to fear.
First, godly women are to follow the examples of the Hebrew matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, in their relationships with their husbands. Three of those four women insisted on sharing their husbands with other women. While they were still motivated by fear or jealousy, those motivations led them to surrender more control to their husbands.
Second, most women would sooner tolerate multiple, temporary, and adulterous affairs than share their husband with a second wife. Not only does promiscuity put her husband’s soul at risk, but it puts both of them at risk of disease. Despite recent propaganda to the contrary, polygyny is no more conducive to the spread of disease than is monogamy. Women will tolerate sin and death before considering true submission.
Third, wives who are otherwise submissive and honorable are likely to enter an immediate rage at the prospect of a second wife. They will give in to the urge to hate, lie, and abuse, but will not give in to their husbands.
These are not characteristics of righteousness and love, but of fear and pride. They are only and thoroughly evil.
i suppose my struggle has never been with polygyny in general. i suppose my struggle was more personal. my husband taking another wife triggered pre-existing insecurities and animosity that would have surfaced at some other time due to some other circumstance had my husband not had polygynous endeavors.That is true in almost everything. Our problems are almost always of our own making. Our attitudes–our baggage–are behind almost every human conflict. God created men and women to be married in a particular relationship to one another, and it is not a relationship of equal partners. In Genesis 3:16 God told women (via Eve) that they will be in an eternal struggle against their pride and drive to rule their husbands. That is the true patriarchal curse of Eve, not that she would be ruled by her husband, but that she and all of her descendants would each have to battle and defeat their own Jezebel in order to be content in life as God meant it to be lived. This desire is like (perhaps more than “like”) a living creature, and it must be fought as such.
Our culture’s monogamous, polygamophobic dogma relieves wives of a large part of this battle. It tells them that it is OK to surrender to Jezebel in this one area. “It’s OK to rule your husband in this way,” it says, “because you’re equal.” Never mind the inherent contradiction of ruling an equal, and never mind that this one surrender gives the enemy a beachhead by which he can conquer the whole woman. Likewise, it tells men that they are perverts or domineering control freaks if they ever feel the slightest desire for another woman or if they entertain even a thought that the other woman might be a good addition to his family. Wives build a fortress of pride and indignation around this little kingdom and hold it over their husbands’ heads, constantly threatening and manipulating.
There are three evidences that this jealously guarded fortress is actually territory surrendered to fear.
First, godly women are to follow the examples of the Hebrew matriarchs, Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel, in their relationships with their husbands. Three of those four women insisted on sharing their husbands with other women. While they were still motivated by fear or jealousy, those motivations led them to surrender more control to their husbands.
Second, most women would sooner tolerate multiple, temporary, and adulterous affairs than share their husband with a second wife. Not only does promiscuity put her husband’s soul at risk, but it puts both of them at risk of disease. Despite recent propaganda to the contrary, polygyny is no more conducive to the spread of disease than is monogamy. Women will tolerate sin and death before considering true submission.
Third, wives who are otherwise submissive and honorable are likely to enter an immediate rage at the prospect of a second wife. They will give in to the urge to hate, lie, and abuse, but will not give in to their husbands.
These are not characteristics of righteousness and love, but of fear and pride. They are only and thoroughly evil.
The Blind Leading Themselves
Scientists Find Lamprey A ‘Living Fossil': 360 Million-year-old Fish Hasn’t Evolved Much
Scientists from the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, and the University of Chicago have uncovered a remarkably well-preserved fossil lamprey from the Devonian period that reveals today’s lampreys as “living fossils” since they have remained largely unaltered for 360 million years.DNA, red blood cells in T-Rex bones, dozens of “living fossils”, dozens of other low-age indicators…If scientists didn’t already know better, you’d almost think that those fossils couldn’t possibly be 360 million years old. Don’t anyone open your eyes, now! I wouldn’t want you to have to face the fact that your entire life’s work has been a complete waste of time.
Girls Will Be Girls
In honor of the Glasgow city councilthings,
I have searched through all of the articles in my blog and altered as
many gender-neutral terms as possible into the appropriate
androcentricisms.
Don’t thank me, love. Just doing my part.
Don’t thank me, love. Just doing my part.
Girlz Az Boyz
You know what’s worse than McBrows?
OK, well, maybe nothing.
But you know what’s about as bad as McBrows? Girls dressing like boys. I don’t just mean tom boys or unfeminine girls. I mean girls who deliberately dress to look like boys. I know of a young woman who always wears a ball cap turned to the side, over-sized pants pulled half-way down to her knees, and an over-sized shirt (or three) usually untucked. She has a pretty face and a nice figure, too.
That is about as tasteless as it gets.
OK, well, maybe nothing.
But you know what’s about as bad as McBrows? Girls dressing like boys. I don’t just mean tom boys or unfeminine girls. I mean girls who deliberately dress to look like boys. I know of a young woman who always wears a ball cap turned to the side, over-sized pants pulled half-way down to her knees, and an over-sized shirt (or three) usually untucked. She has a pretty face and a nice figure, too.
That is about as tasteless as it gets.
Your Own Worst Enemy
The things that you do to yourself are much worse than what anyone has ever done to you.
Your hate, your anger, your bitterness--none of that can hurt anyone but you. The abuse that you do to yourself you blame on what someone else did to you a long time ago, but it's only been you since then. The longer you hang onto it, the more damage you will do to yourself and, through you, to those you love.
Your hate, your anger, your bitterness--none of that can hurt anyone but you. The abuse that you do to yourself you blame on what someone else did to you a long time ago, but it's only been you since then. The longer you hang onto it, the more damage you will do to yourself and, through you, to those you love.
Public Pansy Factories
A Massachussetts public school has banned tag and apparently dodge-ball, too. Their poor little kiddies might get hurt.
What a bunch of freakin' pansies! Kids get hurt. They're supposed to. Celeste D'Elia, grow up! Better yet, let your son grow up, because he never will if you allow feeling safe to be a priority. He will be a dependent and a slave for his entire life, all because of you, his own mother.
The rest of you (poor Celeste is too helpless and dependent on the dole to be able to run her own life), get your kids out of that stupid school. Get them out of ALL public schools and any private school that wants to treat your children like pretty little flowers. Your kids are not decorations. They are your future. If they can't deal with a scraped knee or a bloody nose, how are they going to deal with war? I'll tell you right now. They will run and hide and beg for the privilege of putting their necks under the heels of whatever oppressor promises the greatest personal comfort. They will be cattle begging to be fattened.
Yes, that's harsh. Deal with it.
What a bunch of freakin' pansies! Kids get hurt. They're supposed to. Celeste D'Elia, grow up! Better yet, let your son grow up, because he never will if you allow feeling safe to be a priority. He will be a dependent and a slave for his entire life, all because of you, his own mother.
The rest of you (poor Celeste is too helpless and dependent on the dole to be able to run her own life), get your kids out of that stupid school. Get them out of ALL public schools and any private school that wants to treat your children like pretty little flowers. Your kids are not decorations. They are your future. If they can't deal with a scraped knee or a bloody nose, how are they going to deal with war? I'll tell you right now. They will run and hide and beg for the privilege of putting their necks under the heels of whatever oppressor promises the greatest personal comfort. They will be cattle begging to be fattened.
Yes, that's harsh. Deal with it.
Interview with Stanley Shepp
Recently the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in favor of Stanley Shepp’s right to talk to his own daughter about his religious beliefs. This is a huge victory in the midst of a culture that seems to be rushing head-long into institutionalized misandry. Groups such as the National Organization for Women, Planned Parenthood, and Tapestry Against Polygamy have fought relentlessly to erase all meaningful paternal rights. Mr. Shepp kept fighting despite early rulings against him, and we all owe him our gratitude for his perseverence. His win has been a win for all parents.
While Mr. Shepp has declined other media interviews, he has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Here are the questions and answers, completely unedited. Some of what he has to say was discouraging. For example, the willingness of some news outlets and courts to uncritically accept the claims of those with whom they already agree. However, most of what he says is very encouraging. Some courts and many regular Americans still believe in freedom of religion and keeping out of their neighbor’s business.
Jay: Where did you live when this fight began?
Stanley M Shepp: York, PA
Jay: How did your community and church there react?
Stanley M Shepp: I was excommunicated from the LDS church.
Jay: Where do you live now?
Stanley M Shepp: St. George, Utah.
Jay: How has that community and church reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: The LDS church here does not allow me to attend any activities. I currently attend meetings with a Mormon Fundamentalist Group.
Jay: How has your extended family reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: My family generally supports and loves me. They may not agree with my beliefs, but they know that I would never do anything to harm my daughter.
Jay: How have those reactions affected your personal life?
Stanley M Shepp: Minimally.
Jay: Do you (or did you) work for another company?
Stanley M Shepp: I changed jobs when I left Pennsylvania and came to Utah.
Jay: How has this fight affected your work environment?
Stanley M Shepp: My work environment is fine. Some people know and some people do not. Those who know have been supportive.
Jay: How has this fight affected your relationship with your daughter?
Stanley M Shepp: For the past 4 years, it has allowed others to discuss with her their views of my religious beliefs – while denying my right to correct any misstatements. While my ex-wife denies badmouthing me or my beliefs to my daughter, she has also stated that my daughter is afraid that I will marry her off to some old man now that she is 13. My daughter should have no such fear.
Jay: Was your ex-wife motivated more by concern for what you might actually do or by a gut reaction against the very idea of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: A woman named Carmen Thompson motivated my ex-wife. Ms. Thompson is an anti-polygamy activist who is affiliated with Tapestry Against Polygamy. Ms. Thompson moved from Utah to York, Co. PA and did everything that she could to stir up a contentious environment with mine and my wife’s ex-spouses.
Jay: Do you think your ex-wife will appeal?
Stanley M Shepp: I doubt it. The ruling was 5-1 in my favor. There were two different arguments in my favor. She would have an extremely difficult case and I doubt that the US Supreme Court would even hear it.
Jay: What was the most frightening aspect and moment of all of this?
Stanley M Shepp: The fear that the judge would believe my ex-step-daughter’s stories.
Jay: How did judges and others in the court system react to your patriarchal beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: Some seemed repulsed, some seemed supportive, some seemed understanding. The Supreme Court Judge that I felt was obviously repulsed, was the woman who wrote the majority opinion in my favor. So I might not be a very good judge of how their reactions appeared. I assume now that she was repulsed that the lower court ever wrote an opinion that would trample a man’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech all in one ruling.
Jay: Did you attempt to downplay your more controversial beliefs in court?
Stanley M Shepp: Surely we did. My religious beliefs are not that big of a deal. While they are deeply held, they are not harmful to anyone – and as such, were insignificant to the custody case. My ex-wife’s continuous accusations that I wanted to “marry her off” to some old man were preposterous and based on Carmen Thompson’s fear mongering.
I do acknowledge that her fears are real, like a child who is afraid of the monster under the bed. The fear is real, but it is not based on reality.
Jay: Did you ever have problems with child protective services or similar agencies?
Stanley M Shepp: They interviewed me based on my ex-step-daughter’s accusations. The interview took about 3 minutes. Apparently, the investigator had already concluded, from her interviews with that step-daughter, that her stories were fabricated and that the agency was going to being used for leverage in a custody case.
Jay: Has there been a lot of publicity around your fight?
Stanley M Shepp: Only when we talk to the press. My ex-wife interviewing with Montel Williams after the Superior Court ruling, and with Geraldo Rivera after this ruling were only scrapped after I refused to interview with them. I am of the opinion that the publicity is not good for my daughter. My ex-wife apparently believes that it is good for her, since she has repeatedly invited these people into her home and allowed them to interview my daughter.
Jay: What kind of publicity did you have around the adverse lower court rulings?
Stanley M Shepp: It was in newspapers around the free world. The Abramms report called, Montel Williams called. My ex-wife thrived on the publicity. I was lured in to interviewing with the AP and the local newspaper. I learned that they were not necessarily after the truth, but they were out to sell newspapers.
Jay: How much did the fight cost you?
Stanley M Shepp: The cost is immeasurable. Financially, an exact number could be placed on it, but I do not know exactly how much. I would say over $10,000, less than $20,000. Emotionally, the cost was extensive. The constant emotional stress proved to be too much for my current wife. The loss of that relationship was largely due to the constant attacks by My ex-wife and her ex-husband.
Jay: Have you received financial, legal, or other help from anyone?
Stanley M Shepp: My attorney believed in the importance of this case and the ruling and did much of the research and writing of the appeals pro bono.
Jay: How do you think this judgement will relate to cases involving homosexual parents or parents with any other controversial lifestyles or beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: I believe that it will allow them to discuss their beliefs and lifestyles with their children.
Jay: You wrote, “This case, in my mind, was about the rights of *every* Pennsylvania parent to discuss their religious beliefs with their children.” What would you say to people who object that your arguments could be used to allow a Satanist or pedophile to teach his beliefs to his children?
Stanley M Shepp: While I might disagree with Satanists, it is not illegal to be a Satanist. Pedophilia is certainly a crime, but it should not be illegal for a parent to discuss those things with their children. What if someone is a pedophile, knows it, and is doing their best to not act on those impulses. They may feel that it would be wise for them to explain that to their child at some point. “Janey, we cannot have your friends stay the night at our house. I suffer from an extreme and often uncontrollable attraction to young girls. It would be better for you to spend the night at their house instead.”
Jay: You wrote, “I do not look forward to the court case that will be generated by my desire to have [my daughter] come [to Utah].” What court case is that?
Stanley M Shepp: I am required to give a two week written notice of my intent to take my daughter out of the state. I was already found guilty of contempt of court for taking her to Maryland – after obtaining her mother’s verbal approval. I am sure that when I give written notice, that they will file for a hearing and a judge will have to decide if I can bring her to Utah or not.
Jay: How will this ruling affect the cases of other fathers in Utah, Texas, or any other state who might want to teach their children about the acceptability of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding is that an attorney in another state could use my case as the basis of their argument. The judges in other states would not be bound by that ruling, because the jurisdiction does not overlap. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court – and they refuse to listen to it or they side with me, then it would be more binding on other states.
Jay: What was the most damaging argument against you?
Stanley M Shepp: My ex-step-daughter’s testimony that I touched her inappropriately and proposed to her. Her argument was less damaging in the second case (my wife’s case with her ex-husband over custody of their children) The testimony in that case was elevated to another level. The accusations were worse and the testimony was intended to be more damaging. Our attorney presented the first testimony and questioned why the two stories were not consistent with each other. The girl was obviously at a loss for an answer – and in essence caught in her lies. The judge in that case put much less emphasis on her testimony.
When we heard her testimony at the end of my case – my attorney asked if there was anything else that I wanted to have offered as testimony, and I said that I wanted an opportunity to deny those accusations under oath. He advised against it, but I insisted. It was a good thing that I answered them. On one point that I did not offer counter testimony, one of the judges later commented that such-and-such an accusation was not denied – indicating that it was quite likely true. It was more a case of my attorney not asking me about it and so I did not have the opportunity to respond to it.
Jay: What was the most important argument in your favor?
Stanley M Shepp: The most important argument on our side was the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and supported in the Yoder v. Wisconsin US Supreme Court ruling. One of the PA Supreme Court Justices, during our oral arguments, asked my ex-wife’s attorney the following question: “In the Yoder v. Wisconsin case, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling, would it have been illegal for the Yoder parents to discuss home schooling with the Yoder children?” The attorney answered, “Well, no.” The Supreme Court Justice sat back in his chair and said, “Well, if there is a difference between that case and this case, I would like to know what it is.” My ex-wife’s attorney stuttered and stammered – “Well, this is about polygamy, not home schooling.” It was apparent to me that this justice’s mind was already made up.
While Mr. Shepp has declined other media interviews, he has graciously agreed to answer some questions for us. Here are the questions and answers, completely unedited. Some of what he has to say was discouraging. For example, the willingness of some news outlets and courts to uncritically accept the claims of those with whom they already agree. However, most of what he says is very encouraging. Some courts and many regular Americans still believe in freedom of religion and keeping out of their neighbor’s business.
Jay: Where did you live when this fight began?
Stanley M Shepp: York, PA
Jay: How did your community and church there react?
Stanley M Shepp: I was excommunicated from the LDS church.
Jay: Where do you live now?
Stanley M Shepp: St. George, Utah.
Jay: How has that community and church reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: The LDS church here does not allow me to attend any activities. I currently attend meetings with a Mormon Fundamentalist Group.
Jay: How has your extended family reacted?
Stanley M Shepp: My family generally supports and loves me. They may not agree with my beliefs, but they know that I would never do anything to harm my daughter.
Jay: How have those reactions affected your personal life?
Stanley M Shepp: Minimally.
Jay: Do you (or did you) work for another company?
Stanley M Shepp: I changed jobs when I left Pennsylvania and came to Utah.
Jay: How has this fight affected your work environment?
Stanley M Shepp: My work environment is fine. Some people know and some people do not. Those who know have been supportive.
Jay: How has this fight affected your relationship with your daughter?
Stanley M Shepp: For the past 4 years, it has allowed others to discuss with her their views of my religious beliefs – while denying my right to correct any misstatements. While my ex-wife denies badmouthing me or my beliefs to my daughter, she has also stated that my daughter is afraid that I will marry her off to some old man now that she is 13. My daughter should have no such fear.
Jay: Was your ex-wife motivated more by concern for what you might actually do or by a gut reaction against the very idea of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: A woman named Carmen Thompson motivated my ex-wife. Ms. Thompson is an anti-polygamy activist who is affiliated with Tapestry Against Polygamy. Ms. Thompson moved from Utah to York, Co. PA and did everything that she could to stir up a contentious environment with mine and my wife’s ex-spouses.
Jay: Do you think your ex-wife will appeal?
Stanley M Shepp: I doubt it. The ruling was 5-1 in my favor. There were two different arguments in my favor. She would have an extremely difficult case and I doubt that the US Supreme Court would even hear it.
Jay: What was the most frightening aspect and moment of all of this?
Stanley M Shepp: The fear that the judge would believe my ex-step-daughter’s stories.
Jay: How did judges and others in the court system react to your patriarchal beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: Some seemed repulsed, some seemed supportive, some seemed understanding. The Supreme Court Judge that I felt was obviously repulsed, was the woman who wrote the majority opinion in my favor. So I might not be a very good judge of how their reactions appeared. I assume now that she was repulsed that the lower court ever wrote an opinion that would trample a man’s freedom of religion and his freedom of speech all in one ruling.
Jay: Did you attempt to downplay your more controversial beliefs in court?
Stanley M Shepp: Surely we did. My religious beliefs are not that big of a deal. While they are deeply held, they are not harmful to anyone – and as such, were insignificant to the custody case. My ex-wife’s continuous accusations that I wanted to “marry her off” to some old man were preposterous and based on Carmen Thompson’s fear mongering.
I do acknowledge that her fears are real, like a child who is afraid of the monster under the bed. The fear is real, but it is not based on reality.
Jay: Did you ever have problems with child protective services or similar agencies?
Stanley M Shepp: They interviewed me based on my ex-step-daughter’s accusations. The interview took about 3 minutes. Apparently, the investigator had already concluded, from her interviews with that step-daughter, that her stories were fabricated and that the agency was going to being used for leverage in a custody case.
Jay: Has there been a lot of publicity around your fight?
Stanley M Shepp: Only when we talk to the press. My ex-wife interviewing with Montel Williams after the Superior Court ruling, and with Geraldo Rivera after this ruling were only scrapped after I refused to interview with them. I am of the opinion that the publicity is not good for my daughter. My ex-wife apparently believes that it is good for her, since she has repeatedly invited these people into her home and allowed them to interview my daughter.
Jay: What kind of publicity did you have around the adverse lower court rulings?
Stanley M Shepp: It was in newspapers around the free world. The Abramms report called, Montel Williams called. My ex-wife thrived on the publicity. I was lured in to interviewing with the AP and the local newspaper. I learned that they were not necessarily after the truth, but they were out to sell newspapers.
Jay: How much did the fight cost you?
Stanley M Shepp: The cost is immeasurable. Financially, an exact number could be placed on it, but I do not know exactly how much. I would say over $10,000, less than $20,000. Emotionally, the cost was extensive. The constant emotional stress proved to be too much for my current wife. The loss of that relationship was largely due to the constant attacks by My ex-wife and her ex-husband.
Jay: Have you received financial, legal, or other help from anyone?
Stanley M Shepp: My attorney believed in the importance of this case and the ruling and did much of the research and writing of the appeals pro bono.
Jay: How do you think this judgement will relate to cases involving homosexual parents or parents with any other controversial lifestyles or beliefs?
Stanley M Shepp: I believe that it will allow them to discuss their beliefs and lifestyles with their children.
Jay: You wrote, “This case, in my mind, was about the rights of *every* Pennsylvania parent to discuss their religious beliefs with their children.” What would you say to people who object that your arguments could be used to allow a Satanist or pedophile to teach his beliefs to his children?
Stanley M Shepp: While I might disagree with Satanists, it is not illegal to be a Satanist. Pedophilia is certainly a crime, but it should not be illegal for a parent to discuss those things with their children. What if someone is a pedophile, knows it, and is doing their best to not act on those impulses. They may feel that it would be wise for them to explain that to their child at some point. “Janey, we cannot have your friends stay the night at our house. I suffer from an extreme and often uncontrollable attraction to young girls. It would be better for you to spend the night at their house instead.”
Jay: You wrote, “I do not look forward to the court case that will be generated by my desire to have [my daughter] come [to Utah].” What court case is that?
Stanley M Shepp: I am required to give a two week written notice of my intent to take my daughter out of the state. I was already found guilty of contempt of court for taking her to Maryland – after obtaining her mother’s verbal approval. I am sure that when I give written notice, that they will file for a hearing and a judge will have to decide if I can bring her to Utah or not.
Jay: How will this ruling affect the cases of other fathers in Utah, Texas, or any other state who might want to teach their children about the acceptability of polygamy?
Stanley M Shepp: I am not a legal expert, but my understanding is that an attorney in another state could use my case as the basis of their argument. The judges in other states would not be bound by that ruling, because the jurisdiction does not overlap. If it is appealed to the Supreme Court – and they refuse to listen to it or they side with me, then it would be more binding on other states.
Jay: What was the most damaging argument against you?
Stanley M Shepp: My ex-step-daughter’s testimony that I touched her inappropriately and proposed to her. Her argument was less damaging in the second case (my wife’s case with her ex-husband over custody of their children) The testimony in that case was elevated to another level. The accusations were worse and the testimony was intended to be more damaging. Our attorney presented the first testimony and questioned why the two stories were not consistent with each other. The girl was obviously at a loss for an answer – and in essence caught in her lies. The judge in that case put much less emphasis on her testimony.
When we heard her testimony at the end of my case – my attorney asked if there was anything else that I wanted to have offered as testimony, and I said that I wanted an opportunity to deny those accusations under oath. He advised against it, but I insisted. It was a good thing that I answered them. On one point that I did not offer counter testimony, one of the judges later commented that such-and-such an accusation was not denied – indicating that it was quite likely true. It was more a case of my attorney not asking me about it and so I did not have the opportunity to respond to it.
Jay: What was the most important argument in your favor?
Stanley M Shepp: The most important argument on our side was the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and supported in the Yoder v. Wisconsin US Supreme Court ruling. One of the PA Supreme Court Justices, during our oral arguments, asked my ex-wife’s attorney the following question: “In the Yoder v. Wisconsin case, prior to the US Supreme Court ruling, would it have been illegal for the Yoder parents to discuss home schooling with the Yoder children?” The attorney answered, “Well, no.” The Supreme Court Justice sat back in his chair and said, “Well, if there is a difference between that case and this case, I would like to know what it is.” My ex-wife’s attorney stuttered and stammered – “Well, this is about polygamy, not home schooling.” It was apparent to me that this justice’s mind was already made up.
A Man Ahead of My Times
Scientists have developed a metamaterial to bend light waves around an object, potentially making an object invisible. It doesn’t work well, yet, and only works for microwaves, but it’s a step in the right direction. Years ago I wrote a short story about an assassin who wore a material that worked in almost the exact same way as this stuff.
The relevant passage:
The relevant passage:
The laser impacts hadn’t penetrated Heron's suit, but they had overloaded the light channels wherever they hit. There were circular burn marks–about the size of quarters–at the precise points where the focused light had touched him. Where the channels had overloaded from trying to conduct the laser light around him, there were triangular, rainbow patterns like oil slicks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)