Consistency

In making several changes as of late, one thing remains the same.  This blog has never had the reputation of presenting a politically correct perspective, and that consistency shall remain.

In all the legal drama this country is facing from the LGBTQetc. . . community regarding same sex marriage, cakes, venues, and flowers, one judge has reminded us, there is still a first amendment that not only protects the gay community in their statement of free speech, but cake decorating is an art that is also protected by the first amendment!

A same-sex couple filed a claim against Tastries Bakery saying the owner would not make their wedding cake because of religious beliefs. (KBAK/KBFX photo)

The first court battle caught my attention a few years ago, against Jack Phillips in Colorado, before same sex marriage was even legal in the state!  This is truly how outrageously it all began.  A business man was literally persecuted for not creating a work of art for an event that he does not believe in, and was not legal in the state in which he does business.  Now, how did the spin take place to make it a situation of discrimination when the two men could not legally get married in Colorado?

The second case was truly sad, in that two women sought out this small family bakery to bring destruction.  So far, they've succeeded.  Now, what has that done for their cause?  Before this particular incident, I wasn't pro-gay and I do believe Scripture teaches against same sex unions, but I was of the ilk, "live and let live."  I'm fine with someone who chooses to disagree with me, and doesn't want my beliefs to affect their way of life; as long as that is a two way street.  As an independent small business owner, when a fellow entrepreneur is targeted, I take note.  "Sweetcakes by Melissa" was not protesting gay marriage, the bakery simply did not want to participate in a gay marriage!  That should be an obvious difference for those who choose to incorporate logic in their perspective.

These situations have needed some logic for some time and I'm glad to see there is finally an appreciation of the artistry of cake decorating.  Wedding cakes are usually the secondary focus of the wedding, second only to the bride.  To order a specially designed cake is absolutely expecting a work of art!  If any of these couples felt otherwise, they could have gone to their Walmart bakery, just picked up a tiered cake, and added their special topper, but they wanted a hand-made, uniquely designed work of art.

I find it difficult to believe there are no other bakers who wouldn't have been more than happy to design a unique cake for these couples.  I'll probably say this wrong, but I would think the gay community would be as cohesive as any other group that wants to support their people.  Whether it's a gay baker or a baker that had no religious objections, I'd think they'd want to support those businesses, rather than target those who would rather not sell their art for something they don't believe in.  When those two men set out to destroy Jack Phillips, and those two women targeted the Kleins, that spoke volumes as to underlying intent and truth be told, I would venture to say, actually lost support for their cause.

My thought on this matter is pretty succinct.  These people who have targeted independent business owners, must be so unhappy in their choices, that they have to spread the unhappiness and destruction.  I'd guess these bakers truly do have lives that bring out the "covet" in folks who perhaps don't have contentedness.  Most dissatisfied customers just take their business elsewhere, rather than attempt to take the business.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.  Torah of Holy Scripture

Dare We Question Boldly?

In a society of text codes and agency initials, isn't it interesting that Conspiracy Theory and Critical Thinking both have the same initials?  Not to mention "Controversial Topics, Chem-Trails, and Creation Therapy."  It would seem Conspiracy Theory became a common term in our society about the same time the concept of Critical Thinking was pretty much eliminated in our general culture . . .

Although weaning myself away from my political addiction did take some time, I have to credit former President Obama for my distancing from political posts.  Disagreeing with him, always came with some sort of negative label, that really amounted to nothing more than character assassination.  Whereas; disagreeing with G.W. was just politics, as usual.  It troubled me greatly that we had actually elected an administration that could not be disagreed with, or even questioned; yet was supported by so many Americans.  That sign of the times took awhile to process . . . and once I did, writer's block ensued for a time.

Now that the format has changed in the periodical published from this source, Contemplation of Preponderance will be used to present various topics that are either controversial or considered conspiratorial.  We'll do everything we can, here to use our own critical thinking skills and encourage the same in our readers.  We do not have to agree or disagree with every topic based upon our political or religious affiliations.  Sometimes, even often . . . the majority is wrong!

Before launching, fully into this new direction of "conspiracy theory," I thought I'd see what Wikipedia had to say about the subject.  So, here we go . . . first paragraph:
"A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes an unwarranted conspiracy, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors. Conspiracy theories often produce hypotheses that contradict the prevailing understanding of history or simple facts. The term is a derogatory one.

I wanted to include the Etymology, as the dictionary definition, as well as the history is quite telling.  Historically speaking, it's apparently a fairly new phrase, which was used quite sparingly and considered somewhat neutral, until the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.  The early neutrality of the term is argued, but for the most part, conspiracy theory was not a term of general use until the CIA coined the phrase to discredit those who doubted the official version of JFK's death.  Apparently it was through the sixties, "Conspiracy Theory" became the negative term to officially replace "critical thinking," and has gained traction, since.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". It cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example, although it also appears in journals as early as April 1870. The word "conspiracy" derives from the Latin con- ("with, together") and spirare ("to breathe").

According to John Ayto, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and acquired a pejorative connotation only in the 1960s, with an implication that the theorist is paranoid.^[10] Lance deHaven-Smith has similarly suggested that the term was deployed in the 1960s by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to discredit John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Robert Blaskiewicz rejects such claims, asserting instead that the term has always been derogatory and pointing to examples demonstrating that this has been so since the nineteenth century.

As we present various topics in this publication, I must reiterate, we have become a society of filtered, yet flooded information which has served to often divide and distract "we the people" from what I consider to be the true issues that are of actual concern to us.  I will use the assassination of JFK to make my point.  

The Report of the Warren Commission has been doubted for over 50 years, movies suggesting the potential mendacity of the report have been made; yet the Report remains the official historical account.  The fact that our nation has continued to politically divide since the sixties, only serves to prove, we actually lost site of the fact our President was gunned down in front of thousands and nearly 60 years later, we know that we still don't who did it.  We've accepted, while doubting, not only the official report, but the general distrust of every aspect of official authority!  The distrust and mistrust has grown exponentially.    

The programming is strong and relentless.  Many are afraid to question the government, while others are ashamed to believe what we are told.  The solution?  

The Bible is as current as today's headlines and definitely accurate! 

G-d is not a man, that He should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent: hath He said, and shall He not do it? or hath He spoken, and shall He not make it good?