My Soapbox

I love the pursuit of knowledge. I am constantly looking for new information and perspective, especially if it is about the Gospel.  Recently I have been reading some of the works of Hugh Nibley. I love his straightforward no nonsense attitude. I am currently reading in Approaching Zion . A number of his works are available online at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship . This site has an impressive amount of information to expand my mind. I shall relish all I can find there.

Just a thought that randomly threw itself at me. I have not taken the time to look up references to it but I know there is a belief we should eat fruits and vegetables when in season. This is usually meant to mean when they can be grown without any protective covering such as a greenhouse. However, it has been going through my mind that perhaps it simply means when it is ripe on the plant instead of picked early to be shipped half way around the world so is not flavorful or full of nutrients. I may not need tomatoes in January but if I grow it in my greenhouse and it is fully ripe and flavorful, why not?

Don't know why this one has been floating around in my head but it has. The slogan for those Pro-Choice women wanting abortion is "My Body. My Choice." How right they are. They make the choice when they choose to have sexual relations that result in the beginnings of life within the womb. After that there is no choice, just consequences. With these come accountability not just for the woman but the man that contributed to the situation. Congress may pass a law saying when life begins but that does not make it so. Life begins at conception regardless of when anyone tries to say it does. That life deserves a chance to live. The couple involved in the situation should take the responsibility that comes from their actions and see it has that chance. Anything else is sin.

I always have a plethora of things on my mind. It is amazing I can keep them all straight. I have decided to start jotting them down to keep track of them. This place is as good as any. Maybe someone will have something to say about the thoughts that course through my mind.  The next few short posts will be the ones currently running around in there.

While recently going through some papers I found this definition of the Law Of The Land from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:     "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle...

Why is it that every time someone has a problem they think congress should pass a law?  Whatever happened to responsibility or accountability? With the entitlement attitude that prevails in this country they seem to have completely disappeared. Government is not here to fix everyone's problems. Here is an excellent  article defining the Proper Role of Government.