Skip to content

where’s waldo?

June 25, 2015








Peace and Love

From → Uncategorized

  1. opheliart permalink

    roman catholics … your doctrine is illicit — damaging the fruits and must be removed … it is in the way of proper and respectful growth

    • opheliart permalink

      and do you really, honestly believe that the intent of Christ was to murder and enslave for celibate abusers in lavish houses? you cannot possibly believe that JESUS is in any way like your pontiffs and their POLITICAL INSTITUTION that falsified information to control, accuse, abuse, murder then hide the results …

      look at your history, slaves … yes, YOU are the slaves of INSTITUTIONAL BELIEFS. The message of the Christ calls one OUT of these beds. Didn’t your priests ever teach you this? You can have your parishes and your charities and your activities, even your bingo games, if you like—THESE ARE YOURS, DEAR ONES—YOURS! You worked hard for these and these belong to the people—the communities! Tell that roman institutional head to take a hike! Tell them to go to the mountain to pray! AS JESUS DID … and take your parishes and turn these into walk-ins for the abused—please! and tell your bishops to go their political way in their schemes and dreams or be YOUR WORKERS to help the suffering in the communities! DO NOT PAY INTO THE HIERARCHAL MALAISE AND LAVISH BULLSH** ANY LONGER! YOU FOLKS WILL BE INVESTIGATED FOR MANY CRIMES—INCLUDING THE DEATH OF WOMEN IN HOSPITALS AND THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF THE CHILDREN … You don’t think Society will turn on you … look what happened with the Confederate flag … quick as a whip! even the Republican Politicians wasted no time on this (most of them) … quick as a whip—yes? MOVE!

  2. opheliart permalink

    found this comment to a religious news article

    from a BENEDICTINE rc nun

    Sister Geraldine Marie, OP, RN, PHN June 25, 2015 at 2:31 pm
    A flag is only a symbol but it can be divisive. The confederate flag is a symbol of treason against the People of the United States, regardless of color and it should never be flown. And although Jefferson Davis may have done commendable things before the UN-Civil War, he committed the supreme act of treason by seceding from the Union and declaring war on his own country. In the Constitution, that is a major offense. He should have been put to death.


    He should have been put to death? Like those that opposed the Roman Catholic Church? My-my … some things never change.

    • opheliart permalink

      what if it comes out that the institution called the Roman CAtholic Church paid into and organized terroristic acts … or other TREASONOUS acts against the US … would this mean that you and all your comrades should be put to death? after all you have sworn oaths to, pay into and service this ORGANIZED GROUP OF POLITICAL RELIGIOUS.

  3. opheliart permalink

    why do they never speak of the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HUSBANDS? It’s like they don’t exist in the life of these women except to impregnate? It makes no sense to criminalize just one half of this duo! Yes, she committed the murders, but what is this big hoopla and noise over TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE and all the RELIGIOUS ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN if man is absent from knowing his wife is carrying a baby to term then giving birth? 8 times! Good grief! And he NEVER knew anything? What kind of husband is this guy? So completely and totally unaware? or just claiming ignorance to clear himself from any criminality …
    but it looks real, stinkin’ bad … and I feel very strongly that the courts need to start making both parties RESPONSIBLE IN THESE DEATHS, otherwise … what the hell is marriage? Why bother marrying and did the man think his wife would never get pregnant after all that sex? Come on, people …
    if the courts want to HELP the family situation … they need to start holding dads accountable for PREGNANCIES—married or not, but esp while married.

    • opheliart permalink

      law—man … such a discriminating dud on this stuff it just angers me to no end! Man impregnates woman … he ditches woman … woman is afraid, alone, without the ability to care for baby … possibly even abused and afraid of man … hurt … wounded … unprepared to go it alone … man moves on to impregnate another woman … woman decides on an abortion … PATRIARCHAL Religious accuse woman … man is not accused—NO! only woman … ????????????????????

      Courts, when are you going to set up laws that hold men responsible for their penis’s actions? You hold men responsible for when his hands punch another man, esp one of your own—oh, yes! but what of those penises … can’t find a way to holster these?

      • opheliart permalink

        I actually read a Roman Catholic male comment that these women should not be opening up their legs if they don’t want babies. Is this common lore in Roman Catholicism? IT IS AUTOMATICALLY THE FAULT OF THE FEMALE? Man never lies? He never makes promises then betrays her? ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS PREGNANT WITH CHILD? Gee, how common is it that man leaves in the middle of a relationship/partnership … while something big is being made?

      • opheliart permalink

        I shared what happened to me on a bus when I was 18 years old. A young man getting off the bus stopped at my seat, put two bright red tomatoes in my lap and said, “Pregnancy is man’s way of enslaving a woman’s body.” That was all he said. I said nothing because I was a bit surprised. So … many years later and looking out across the sands of man what do I see?

  4. opheliart permalink

    of course (seeing the temple in the photo) the waldensian group is not as it once was … like so many sects, things change
    *note: these may have been called HERETICS and burned at the stake by the Roman rule of its church, but these are not the gnostic of my belief and Faith. just so the reader understands …
    the point of our sharing is that people were sharing and should have been permitted this … but like today—ROME DEMANDS ALLEGIANCE AND DESIRES CONTROL—this has not changed.

    Fran stages a public apology yet insists his members (and the world as he still struts about along with INSTITUTION as if he and INSTITUTION are God—JUDGE—ARBITER) obey his/its creeds—that DOCTRINE/TEACHINGS he and Institution claim is infallible. Do you see the monarchy approach?

    IF YOU GO ON ANY RELIGIOUS SITE WHERE GOD-JESUS-CHRIST-DOCTRINE-THEOLOGY … SCRIPTURE is discussed you will find ROMAN CATHOLICS claiming their INstitution-it’s Doctrine as complete and full authority on God—as if this came from the very lips of God—the HOLY SPIRIT Itself …

    this is FALSE—deceptive and could not be more misleading. These teachings came from novice orators demanding allegiance. If you could peek back at these tribunals, inquisitions … popes and bishops in their lavish quarters … you would be horrified at the indecency and this, my friends, would open your eyes to the nature of the inception and direction of the Roman Catholic Church.

    Truth is not borne from deception, abuse, lies and torturous tactic. These were ADOLESCENTS —toys for tots —as they built their dynasties to rule, demanding OBEDIENCE to something they barely understand … but they used their self-desire of being RULER AND JUDGE AND FORCED OBEDIENCE …

    what has changed? Rome still demands allegiance and obedience … THEY JUST GO ABOUT IT A DIFFERENT WAY 😉
    Some countries are still under this FACIST REGIME—do your homework and you will be horrified by the the brotherly dominance of system both religion and politics governing—ABUSING AND ENSLAVING the people … and CORRUPTION is a disease in these places with crime oozing at every corner.


  5. opheliart permalink

    Getting back to two comments from this week:

    samuel johnston Jun 24, 2015 at 10:37 pm
    Hi Mark,
    May I suggest “Francis of Assisi” by John Holland Smith. It details how the historical Francis pledged his loyalty to the then Pope, Innocent III, during a time when the clergy had been under attack by Joachim of Flora, Peter Waldo, Arnold of Brescia, the Humble Men, and similar groups who were dismayed at the wealth and luxury enjoyed by the ruling clergy.
    After the death of the historical Francis, the Church rapidly moved to take over the Order, get rid of the original “Franciscans”, erase the real Francis, and replace him with the mythological figure we know today. This pope, for all his likableness, is not interested in candor, or historical accuracy.

    addressing an article by Silk

    And …

    • opheliart permalink

      comment from jay’s commentary:

      Philip June 20, 2015 at 12:13 am
      Make no mistake; the Pope and Rome never take their sights off the political theater that plays out for the fools in the audience watching a magical show; now you see it, now you don’t. The Church in its history has always played musical chairs with those in power who control our perceived world. Remember, even Jesus said treat your slaves with dignity. Look in the mirror, all you fools. Who do you think the “slaves” are? The Church’s main goal was always to survive, even if you have to compromise the truth. Liberation Theology is nothing more than Marxist Philosophy rewrapped as a new gift. To think the Pope has made a paradigm change from Capitalism to Communalism invokes opium dreams of Nirvana on earth. Regarding humans and all that is of earth, are one with God, made by God, and exist through God is correct. Even Jesus told His disciples, “I am not here to be your King, nor to conquer the evils of this world.” Earth is only a crucible for us to pass through. Humans: 0,…


      Political theater … not interested in candor, or historical accuracy. The REAL Francis erased … replaced with a mythological figure …

      The pope is a POLITICAL PUPPET … we have shared this many times, but what you don’t see in all of this smoke screening and lip service is the carnage.

      The Roman Catholic Church has a lot of BLOOD on its hands … and it refuses to change policy. It is still feeding and fueling from those OLD bottles—the once tainted. THIS, my friends, is causing the FALL OF ROME.

      They cannot blame or accuse anyone but themselves for their decline, and to parade deception worsens the situation. It will come back to bite—know this.

      I was beginning to slip into sleep last night when these two words were presented to me:

      mass murders

      *****I knew soon after what this is related to, and it goes back to what I heard on this pope even before he was elected for the papal position. A storm is coming.

  6. opheliart permalink

    yes, they love milkweed …

    I find it interesting that these 5th graders in MINNEAPOLIS are thinking clearly …

    is this the same Minneapolis as this?

    ah, movement … maybe the butterflies will come

  7. opheliart permalink

    the holy no see and palestine signed their brotherhood pact to instigate war … yes, we know …

    the catholic people are in for a shocker with their pin up pope

    • opheliart permalink

      some people never learn … 😦

      but I suppose it will get the morose moving … and out of the way

      • opheliart permalink

        like we always say … God does bring good from man’s wreckage, and please know that He gives man choice and shows time and time again where and how he fails, but man desires his own feeding and desires for institutional and self-agenda … those power plays …

        why does war continue? why does man bully, abuse and murder? why does man desire to have people as property to use for his own ideology and riches? to cater to his excesses? even if you took all set religious doctrine off the map as A-max so desperately and bullishly demands … man has his political schemes —always disguised and parleying … only a fool believes Jesus—the Christ—kills and maims and destroys for some higher purpose—HOGWASH … anyone with any SPIRITUAL MATURITY reading the Writings knows these are profound Prophetic Voice. Those bastardizing the majority of these Writings (we are aware that some were not written with pure intent and some misinterpreted and misunderstood causing misuse) will be found to be just flat out ignorant, or caught with their pants down … and pushing his own for his own … and charged as a racist—possibly even as inciting violence, and this goes for the sneaky placard politics … with religious-political figures … the truth will come out and the old will finally be realized as a con machine—a death trap … and as Springsteen says:

        a death trap suicide rap get out while you are young ….

  8. opheliart permalink

    Entry: June 27, 2015, Friday … @11:43 AM

    topic: ssm

    I think I read in at least one article that the opposition has 3 weeks. the law does not go into affect immediately … so, what might happen in these coming weeks …

    initially, SPIR said a few months ago that it would be a state by state decision… we also said that theology might play a role—at least it was mentioned. hmm … so, what might transpire in the next few weeks given these initial forecasts?

    I am still hearing a state by state decision—that it will result in this. is it possible that the opposition can come up with a reason or reasons significant enough to not allow country-wide ssm? no, not seeing this. so, what might be a deterrent?
    taxes? hmm … how might this play into it?

    that, for starters …

    • opheliart permalink

      in addition, what are all the “THE CHURCH” members going to do now that (for the time being) SSM is allowable? And I know many Catholics are okey-dokie with ssm and I know Catholics gay and married … so, is it the dwindling membership that believes the Roman Catholic Church is the VOICE OF GOD? if so, there is confusion in the ranks on what is truth and what is apostasy in Rome … that apostolic concession 😉


      • opheliart permalink

        time for a schism … time for a lot of things

  9. opheliart permalink

    New York’s recent legalization of gay marriage is being hailed by many as a watershed moment in the history of the fight for equal rights for same sex couples. Whatever the long-term consequences of this decision may be, chances are, in the near term, it will be met with increased opposition from Christian conservatives. Their efforts, which reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of marriage, are misguided at best and sinful at worst. There will always be Christians who oppose “homosexuality” on moral grounds, but enlisting the state to protect “the sanctity of marriage” is a mistake. Such efforts demonstrate a fundamental – even idolatrous – misunderstanding of the meaning of “holy matrimony,” effectively denying Christ by vesting the state with divine authority.

    California’s infamous Proposition 8 and similar measures sure to make it onto the ballots during next year’s election fall prey to the so-called Constantinian temptation. When Constantine legalized Christianity in the early fourth century, some began to see an almost godlike authority in the state. An increasing number of Christians found it difficult to tell the difference between the things that belong to Caesar and the things that belong to God.

    Yet, despite their confusion, those earlier Christians generally knew there was a difference between God and the state, even if they could not always tell where it was. Our sin is worse. Today’s Christian conservatives seem to be worshiping America, or at least a certain idea of it, when they ask the government to protect the “sanctity” of marriage. In doing this, they have vested the state with the power to sanctify.

    “Sanctity” is a holiness word. It is what happens when the Holy Spirit (the Spiritus Sanctus in Latin) transforms an ordinary thing into a means of salvation. The Spirit turns bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. She makes ordinary water into the instrument of our second birth. I am Eastern Orthodox, so in my church marriage is another kind of sacrament (like baptism and eucharist). The Holy Spirit turns the husband and wife into an image of Christ and the church.

    I mention my church because we take the idea of marital sanctity to the extreme, at least in our official theology. Marriage, for us, is not a contract or a covenant but a miracle! We have no vows in our ceremonies, only prayers, because only God can make a marriage. We allow but discourage remarriage because, as the Spirit transforms bread and wine, she has transformed the couple into one flesh. Because marriage is sacred, we must be married by a priest in a church, not by a judge in a courthouse or an Elvis impersonator somewhere on the Vegas Strip.

    Strictly speaking, our theology does not recognize the legitimacy of such marriages. They are not sanctified by the Spirit in the church. On the other hand, it is not as if the average Orthodox Christian thinks people married in secular ceremonies are not “really” married. For practical purposes we tacitly recognize these civil marriages even if they don’t quite meet our theological standards.

    This tacit recognition of a distinction between sacred and civil marriages is one my fellow Christians would do well to keep in mind as they consider how to proceed in their efforts to protect the sanctity of marriage. Anyone who thinks marriage is something sacred needs to recognize that from the church’s perspective all marriages granted by the state for tax and inheritance purposes are just civil unions by another name. Christians who truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman are welcome to their belief. But Christians who demand the state take up the task of defending marital sanctity are effectively making the state their god. They seem to think that their local capitol can perform miracles when only the Holy Spirit has the power to sanctify.

    If marriage truly is a sacrament, as many Christians (including myself) believe, then we need to be much more concerned with developing a robust theology of marriage and making that understood among our congregations than with mobilizing them to deny the right of a civil marriage to same-sexed partners. If we believe marriage is a sacrament, then all marriages performed outside the church are civil marriages, and however the state defines marriage can have absolutely no bearing on its sanctity as far as the church is concerned

    Of course, there will be some Christian churches who see gay marriage as a sacrament. In a pluralistic society they are welcome to their belief. It should have no bearing on how Chrsitians relate to society at large but only each other. Disagreements about sacraments are nothing new to the church. We cannot agree on whether we should use leavened or unleavened bread in communion. We cannot agree if Christ is “really” or “spiritually” present in the elements. We cannot agree if baptism is inherently effective or an “outward sign of an inner grace.” Infighting about such definitions is one of the church’s oldest and most venerable traditions! In medieval times a prince or an emperor might have been called in to settle the matter. How strange it would be for Christians today to demand the state protect the sanctity of the eucharist or baptism! How Constantinian!

    Denying civil marriage to homosexuals does nothing to protect its sanctity. If the state stopped granting marriage licenses altogether, making every union a civil union, the church would still have the sacrament of holy matrimony.

    Christians opposed to gay marriage can continue to see civil marriages as sacramentally illegitimate without sponsoring ballot initiatives to ban it. They are free to join churches that share their views without essentially vesting judges or Elvis or the U.S.A with the power to sanctify. Christians can continue to bicker with each other about which kind of marriages are sacraments, but civil marriages like the kind New York extended to gays fall beyond the purview of the church because they cannot be sacred by definition. This is true for straights and gays.

    Calling upon the state to protect our sacrament is an act of extreme unfaithfulness. Only God can make a marriage holy. Christians can continue to fight about what kinds of marriages “count” as sacred, but we have also learned to agree to disagree about such things. In polite company, and for the sake of keeping peace with each other (because mutual apostasies take so much effort), we can do with marriage what we do with our disagreements about eucharist and baptism: keep our mouths shut and let God sort it out in the end.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post belong solely to the author and are not representative of the Orthodox Church.

    • opheliart permalink

      one should really consider the Eastern Orthodox Church if interested in a more liturgical experience. I appreciated it immensely when I was there—both in Greek and English … I felt very much engaged apart from worldly involvement when participating in the liturgy. sure, there are things from my experiences in the Orthodox Church that I was not at all pleased with, but these experiences were very important in shaping the PERSON OF SPIRIT I am today, and I know those involved in this malpractice are childish and fear-filled, and there will be growth from this … which brings me to what we have been saying for a while. It is time for change. I know that I will be moving into liturgical work. I am priest, not vocational religious … there is a difference, and as man moves into a more human and Spiritual substance of Light on the Word, he will begin to understand what is meant in this work, and the differences between the vocational religious and the spiritual, and the depth of the latter (or the ascent of the ladder—as John would say 😉

      my work is with the priests … but I know I will be initiating a new liturgy, not religious, but with familiar expression, as this has potential for placement in moving toward Spirit ID. when we say not religious we mean not of statutory means—–no dogmatic stations, because this is not where Spirit can be ignited and of streaming. The order, The New Order of the Faith, is not a denomination nor is it a new doctrine … but a MOVEMENT of Spirit Artists in the Advent of Prophesy: the Evolution of God and Man. We are seekers—gnostics—and are used to ignite and bridge the gap … in moving across that great divide …

  10. opheliart permalink

    was scanning a few comments to the ssm news and rc bishop’s accounts and saw some truly deadened mindsets. seriously, the Writings are not what the religionists think …
    they can choose to think as they do, but what is troubling is that they are thoroughly convinced that their “church” is God’s Voice—IOW, what their doctrine/ pope/bishops say is the actual WORDS OF GOD … wow … this is absolutely no different from the days of old, and I feel their venom and desire to SILENCE others …

    this is a sign of the barren tree. it produces no fruit.

    • opheliart permalink

      these are the most worldly of all … their church sits on a sand pile about ready to be blown away
      and to be forward thinking on this, it’s not about ssm … or any manmade marriage of the law … that these religionists should be so angry and so proud and so institutional minded is of interest for the people to access … document and discuss … because it bears witness to imminent disease

      • opheliart permalink

        we have shared some … but there are numerous articles out there … showing how mankind has abused marriage. this is obvious … there is no reason for anyone to deny that this is true. husbands and wives … children … believers and nonbelievers alike have abused marriage … so, there is no reason to believe that ssm will be any different. sad but true. this does not mean that every person entering a “civil marriage” is uncivil, or turns uncivil, but so very many do become uncivil with each other and in turn can influence children by the abuses. like we said before, what is taught in the home that young men should think it acceptable to rape and gang rape a young woman in high school … college … at a party, club or mission trip is something having to do with cultural feeding and home life … developing mindset to view self as power over another, possibly one weaker, or to weaken another so that he can become more powerful and it shows a desire for acceptance and superiority—that UNIVERSAL striving of set thinking ON something unstable. where do children, and this includes children from believing/religious homes … get their ideas to hurt another—take advantage of others? and look at the parental set up … husband and wife dynamics …
        this is why the MARRIAGE spoken of in the Writings is not about the traditions—cults of man. Our Lord speaks of something other. He speaks of a marriage in HARMONY with Truth. The Angels speak of heart ascending to mind in the wellspring of Light—Truth. That man should be angry and fight over this thing called “the traditional marriage” as of God is a bit selfish and demonstrates unawareness on the Spiritual Language. God shows no partiality … so, he is not engaging in these forces … driving one way or the other.

  11. opheliart permalink

    I look ahead—always … to see/hear what might be a deterrent in the work: where I am. Will the laws forcing businesses cause me to “make and sell” something that is not within me to do? The truth is, I have moved out of commission work that puts me in a vulnerable position. This does not mean I won’t be up against opposition in this work; it just means that the paintings, writings … will not be manipulated by anyone for anything. Man can take and not give credit where credit is due, but he will soon be up against his theft … as there will be others aware in this. But what comes will cause people to begin to realize Spirit/God/Christ differently from what they are used to—from what religious have used for their antiquities.

    Now is the time for important change. WE are at a place—a juncture—whereby east meets west but not as an ecumenical diadem. Land must recede. This allows for water to gain provocative symmetry. So, you see … how the Language is foreign to the mind (eyes) of man—the religionist’s table?

  12. opheliart permalink

    there are no lines drawn in the sand … just metal detectors at every pool

  13. opheliart permalink

    Atheist Max June 26, 2015 at 12:57 pm
    “cheapening of what God intended”

    Gods never get what they want, poor things.

    Ever notice how many times God has to commit mass murder
    to accomplish ‘his goals’ only to see them fail repeatedly?

    God thought he could rid the world of bad people
    by drowning all of the animals (what exactly were they guilty of?)
    including all of humanity, in a great flood – except for Noah and an Ark which God failed to help build.

    God’s failed plan included a re-population of humanity through INCEST!
    Even Noah’s own family turned out to be a bunch of failures – so God failed to save the right family!

    God failed with Jesus completely. Jesus turned out to be a complete failure – spurring needless divisions over centuries of war-mongers.

    The US Constitution, however, appears to be quite successful ever since it abandoned God!
    “Congress shall make no law establishing a religion” – US Constitution

    Man’s laws are better than God’s failures.


    This is more of just smelly foul play … not even funny, but he must love to roll around in it because he shows how he thinks so often we are beginning to worry that he may self-destruct. poop-poor sad, tired old A-Max …
    we post your unhinging to let the world know the difference between thinking and starvation.

    • opheliart permalink

      of course, A-Max is starving, raving …

      • opheliart permalink

        oh wow … that just reminded me!

        “Being the travelers that we are, we often fall into weather cracks, stumble into gluts, and meet up with—” Q paused for a moment then continued. “Creatures with other intentions.”

        Ophelia In the Beyond, Book One, Chapter Three: The Land of Cain

        And a glut can swallow itself … hmm … that must be what A-max is doing 😉

  14. opheliart permalink


    how will it all play out … the latest ruling and the tempest? government in the US of A cannot deny religionists the right to refuse the ‘idea’ that ssm is marriage … and they are carefully treading these waters because what clings to this latest ruling is the ‘idea’ that those opposing ssm are discriminating in their systems of belief—the very idea that they do not view ssm as marriage carries a burden, and it’s viewed by many names … and the court justices cannot be caught discriminating in what may now be a growing minority. interesting turnaround. and some wonder, will the new legion bear down on the ‘minority’ causing these to feel—experience discrimination.
    hmm … reaping what has been sown? the pendulum swing. so, something will come to help balance what might potentially be an imbalance … as our civil society has certain freedoms it did not have under the religionists rule of old. many religionists have yet to realize this fact. they take for granted that they have the freedom to complain—to petition government … not realizing that for so very very long citizens under the monarchy’s of the religionist’s did not have this simple freedom—to speak, to voice …
    again, this is why Holy Scripture is not tied up in these quarrels about marriage. render unto caesar is exactly what we see happening in our society … people want certain things, votes move in its favor, and unless one can demonstrate/bring forth evidence/fact that it is dangerous or of some vagrant concept illicit … it proceeds.
    man has not even addressed the indecencies of the old … he cannot see the stain or the quagmires of his feeding … so, life as he knows it in his half-sentences continues …

    • opheliart permalink

      you think us pessimistic? no, we are sober. we see the malaise on the horrors playing out daily in cities and towns all over the world … aware that systems do not address these … and so much attention on one issue of course distracts from these very serious horrors … and we know that ssm will not solve these horrors. this will not move man toward awareness in this. the anti-sodomy groups fear the sodomy … yet sodomy exists in their houses of worship—has for as long as man has been sexually active. what he has permitted is men dressed as holy trustworthy men to organize and deceive those poor and fortuitous … the unaware and unsuspecting

      don’t you find it ironic that a system claiming to be God’s mouthpiece hid and still hides their sodomy practices, yet stand before the world condemning it for these acts? what hypocrisy and IGNORANCE rules the minds of these men and their followers? do they think everyone daft?
      what they do is play a very sneaky hand … what they cannot know is what comes that will tear down their walls and show them at it. yes … it will come in various forms … exposing this hypocrisy … and the lies, and the abuses.

      do the “protestants” against ssm or against sodomy in particular think the “celibates” honest? these push agenda … politics … throw their weight around, but never address what they say bothers them the most … so, they come off as disingenuous.

      and the roman catholics who are against ssm, and esp sodomy … you are the most hypocritical or the most insincere. you look the other way while your priests on up practice sodomy, but the horror part is the part that we have been going on about: the sexual abuse of the children, and young women.

      you are nothing but noise, you religionists … as you had the chance to SPEAK to your superiors and challenge them to address not only their hypocrisy but their crimes! now? what have you to show? who listens to you now?

      well, as we shared, God does bring good from the wreckage … maybe now we see the truth about what has really been going on … maybe you will be chastised severely and maybe it is your turn to be grateful for the reality check.

      • opheliart permalink

        maybe it’s time for the judges to be judged


        A three year old child is brutally beaten by his mother’s boyfriend and then threatened to remain quiet or he’ll get another beating. One morning following another beating, the child goes to school with bruises on his face and is questioned by a concerned teacher. Petrified and not knowing what to do or say, the little boy eventually discloses the horrific abuse to the teacher who calls the police. It is later discovered that this boy had belt marks on his back and stomach, and bruises all over his body. Police also find his 22-month old sister with black eyes, burn injuries, a swollen hand, and two pigtails having been ripped out of their roots. The abuser, Darius Clark , is arrested and charged with aggravated child abuse. Justice seems to be having its way until shortly before the trial when the judge decides that the child isn’t capable of testifying against the defendant.

        At trial, the judge did allow the teacher to testify about what the child had told her regarding being hit by the defendant. Fortunately, the defendant was convicted of these horrific crimes and sentenced to prison for 28 years. Unfortunately, just when it seemed as if justice had finally been served, the appellate court reversed the defendants’ conviction. The court ruled that since the child was not able to testify, the teacher’s testimony about what the child had reported violated the defendant’s constitutional right to confront his accuser.

        Was the court saying that abused children who are unable to confront their abusers are simply out of luck? Was the court siding with those who hurt little ones? Where is the justice in that?

        Fortunately, the appellate court didn’t have the last word. That last word was published last week in a Supreme Court decision getting a bit less attention than others, but no less important. A decision that has the potential to bring much needed justice to abused children around the country.

        Before going further, let’s take a brief (and hopefully understandable) look at the law.

        The Law

        As explained in an earlier post, the Supreme Court previously held that a “testimonial” out of court statement can only be admitted in court if the defendant has had the opportunity to cross examine the one who made the original statement as required by the Sixth Amendment. In short, the Court ruled that a “testimonial” out of court statement is not admissible if the original declarant doesn’t testify in the trial. Generally, this seems like a pretty good rule that protects the accused from being convicted without having an opportunity to test the validity of the testimony and the credibility of the witness. However, there are times when such a confrontation is impossible for the witness.

        Show caption

        Supreme Court of the United States – courtesy of Phil Roeder via Flickr (Image source)
        Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never specifically defined “testimonial” in relation to this issue. However, it has given us a few helpful hints. For example, it has defined a statement as “testimonial” when it leads “an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” For example, statements made to judges or even police officers will often be classified as “testimonial” as such statements are often used in later trials.

        In recent years, the Court has held that an out of court statement is not “testimonial” if its primary purpose is to “enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency”. On the other hand, a statement is considered “testimonial” if there is no ongoing emergency and the primary purpose of questioning is to prepare for an upcoming hearing or trial.

        Until last week, it had been unclear whether or not an out of court abuse disclosure by a child is considered “testimonial”. Such an interpretation would prohibit adult witnesses from testifying about what a child abuse victim had reported unless that same victim also testified in court. Without a doubt, this would have encouraged abusers to take whatever measures necessary to frighten children from walking into court. In short, such an interpretation would have emboldened abusers and silenced children.

        The Supremes Speak

        Last week, as many were waiting for decisions on the Affordable Care Act and same sex marriage, the Supreme Court released its decision in Ohio v. Clark. The Court unanimously ruled that the disclosure of abuse by the 3 year-old boy to his teacher was not “testimonial”. The Court held that allowing the teacher to tell the jury what the child had reported was not a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront even when the child did not testify at trial.

        The conviction of Darius Clark was reinstated. Justice served!

        This decision not only brings justice to a little boy and his sister, it will also be the fuel that brings justice to many other abused children who bravely speak up, but then find themselves too young, too scared, or too fragile to testify in court against those who have hurt them. The Court made at least three points that should have a significant positive impact on the admissibility of abuse disclosures made by little ones:

        Suspected child abuse is an ongoing emergency. In deciding that the out of court statement by the 3 year old to his teacher was not “testimonial”, the Court held that the primary purpose of asking the child about suspected abuse was to identify and end a threat. In other words, the suspicions of child abuse created an ongoing emergency, which provided the basis for allowing the child’s out of court statement to be admissible in trial even though the child never testified. Defining suspected child abuse as an ongoing emergency significantly increases the likelihood that a statement by a child made in relation to abuse is not “testimonial”, and thus can be considered by the jury without requiring the child to confront the offender in the courtroom. This is good news for kids and bad news for those who hurt them!
        Statements by very young children will seldom be considered “testimonial”. In its decision, the Court wrote, “…research on children’s understanding of the legal system finds that young children have little understanding of prosecution.” Thus, it is highly unlikely that a young child makes an abuse disclosure for the primary purpose of preparing for an upcoming trial. On the contrary, the Court writes, “….a young child in these circumstances would simply want the abuse to end, would want to protect other victims, or would have no discernible purpose at all.” This means that most out of court abuse disclosures by young children are not “testimonial” and can be admissible without requiring them to testify. This is good news for kids and bad news for those who hurt them!
        The primary purpose test is not exclusive. The Court seems to back away from making the primary purpose test the exclusive determiner on whether a child’s statement is “testimonial”. In the majority opinion, Justice Alito writes, “Thus, the primary purpose test is a necessary, but not always sufficient, condition for the exclusion of out-of-court statements under the Confrontation Clause.” The Court then proceeds to partially base its decision on historical precedent, not the primary purpose test. Alito writes, “As a historical matter, moreover, there is strong evidence that statements made in circumstances similar to those facing L.P. [3 year old] and his teachers were admissible in common law.” Though the decision leaves much room for further clarification, it is pretty clear that the Court leans towards a less restrictive approach for determining the admissibility of child statements made out of court. This is good news for kids and bad news for those who hurt them!
        In order for this important decision to make a difference in the lives of children, need to make sure prosecutors read and understand it. Taking a moment out of our day to reach out to our local prosecutor’s office with a copy of this case (or at the very least, a copy of this post) could deliver very good news to a child longing for justice.

        In a week of historical Supreme Court decisions, this one could very well make the most difference in the lives of hurting children. For that, I am grateful.

        – See more at:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: