To Frances...

   I used to be of that particular bit of self deluded generation that believed people that were 'cop outs' , were so for their own personal selfish reasons.  I don't believe that so much any more.

It can be a real sad tough life for some people out there.  Try to forgive your father there if you hadn't already done so.  

Laying down life on another planet

   Science fiction at times recalling, for instance, sterilizing selections of alien geography to deposit earth life on another planet, and letting sown earth life proliferate in one particular case, like Destiny's Road.  This supposes likely a similar idea that geo engineering or engineering habitability is given in rote and similar ways found on earth, but there are potential problems to this sort of thinking.  The writings of Interstellar seem to suggest, or possibly hint at such a problem, for instance, the exploratory gambles of engaging in interstellar space without so much of an inkling of where one might be headed, all the while given to another notion that some limited form of help might be provided by a higher intelligence (e.g. the writer) in limited form.  The explorers in such scenarios find not exactly habitable earths which is yet another problem.  After all sending a seed ark into the cosmos is likely not the whim of one's pocket book.  Even having a potential conduit for short cut travel, hadn't dispensed that extensive time might be needed in finding even the suitable candidate necessary, and if the candidate had been found with any pre existing life, then what?
     I recall some time ago Sagan's discussion on space, and the analogy provided by the ancient Greeks in considering the composition of space.  In this case, as you may well be familiar with, Sagan slices through the apple, and gives the reasoning provided on what might fill the space between the apple, or if the apple were so solid, what space were allowed inside the apple that allowed the knife so easily to pass through?  On the other hand, it seems if Nature on a life bearing planet were rife with life, it may be that Nature should potentially abhor a vacuum of unused space.  For instance, if one were to examine Earth real estate, in one small random measure around this planet, one might find teeming examples under the microscope.  On the other hand, in non life suitable conditions random samples might yield exactly the opposite, or in other words, little signs of life, and certainly one might wonder less investment possibility for life having evolved elsewhere.  It seems the problem, on the other hand, for merely throwing life down (and where writers get it potentially right) on the question for making Earth life suitable, amounts neither to throwing earth life seeds on a given alien planet, but making a tolerable space in such place for Earth life.  Here likely the other problem creeps in which  Earth life is squeezed out rapidly neither  being as well adapted to an indigenous alien counterpart habitat.  The ideas suggested in the movie Prometheus seem to get some things right better, I would offer in my biased opinion.  At least it seems, if one were intent on distributing seeds throughout the cosmos, one might not be as interested in protecting absolutely the characteristics of earth life, but some essence of it in the form of genetics.
    Alien drops genetic seeds onto an earth given to infancy in so far as hosting life, but clearly a nursery with better odds relative to most other candidate sites in hosting life later on.  The script might have included that the overseer(s) invested into geo engineering, or provisioning cosmological events that would shape and sculpt the earth in ways to produce predictable changes and given to guiding evolutionary processes in some manner that would lead to the outcome today.  In a way it almost sounds like intelligent design, although here the writer refrained in describing the 'shaping' as clearly that as opposed to merely dropping genetic seeds that would be absorbed into the planet, and lead to some eventual outcome of life as we know it.  The writer later concedes that whatever seed life were deposited were also tenaciously adaptive, but dangerously so in the parable of Pandora's box, as the old Frankenstein, or Golem story goes, and this in itself illustrating even in the case of the alien architects patient enough to wait for life processes to succeed in transforming its host, also indicates and illustrates the potential dangerous paradox waiting for life.  Very invasive and scarily adapted biology, develops with rapid evolution in order rapidly life seed a planet may be its own weapons of mass destruction.  One in that its invasive process is exactly given to such parametric genetic design, and secondly, in the absence of a kill switch, how to undo it.  

On the other hand, Earth life as far as we know may have been a turtle in terms of evolutionary time scales, or if waiting for the beer, someone spent a long time waiting for the brew to complete, and it seems this were likely as far as scientific evidence is given, billions of years in the making.  Certainly an old brew, but this creation method, outside of more synthetic and artificial constructs may have some advantages for natural life processes.  One it seems, if settling out life balance, humans excluded, might it be harder to find all encompassing invasive species on Earth relative to other places in the cosmos artificially engineered to take short cuts in evolutionary adaptation processes?  Or the turtle in terms of evolutionary speed for life seeding, may not be as bad after all, if one weren't so pressed for time, or in other words, it seems cooperative biology and building a cooperative biosphere that weren't so much hard pressed at rapidly out adapting other biology could be problematic in the synthetics case...as one could relate here, common agricultural weeds exist primarily because humans had the habit of picking undesirables out of the earth, and thus engaged in the process of genetically hybridizing a plant, so that whatever plant that weren't fully exterminated were left behind happenstance with more rapid sexual reproduction rates, or one weed left behind in the process returned the favor of genetic improvement coupled with the added space given by its companion species removal.  In return this would provide a plant not only hybridized to sexually reproduce more virulently but also potentially in more  invasive and efficient manner relative to other biology in such field.  Ironically, however, the less desirable versus the less desirable biology takes shape here, and it seems something of evolution's Pandora's box lay embedded.  Human's having gained significant foothold on a life bearing planet, thus begin to illustrates the dangers of moving elsewhere in the cosmos.

Here while in the other script, one human desires the construction of many arks that would have vast populations of Earth exiting the planet, on the other hand, is hinted problematic logically speaking.  It is after all quite expensive today, for instance, sending small payloads into space.  It is also even more expensive sending live human cargo, alongside what ever necessary artificial biosphere that need be developed to sustain such life.  Here I might have refrained in the script and having said, "Is there anything else that we couldn't do about our planet to save it again?"  The reality in such future, if given an apocalypse, a big percentage of life would be doomed, and there would be likely less getting around this one should imagine, or at least not with some higher level of save the human race alien contact here more than aiding and abetting with a wormhole, but also provisioning humans with earth to space transport systems and the whole interstellar kit to go with this.  At least thus far, a planet so pitted to spending its resources on surviving might have even more arguably marginal means for interstellar travel.  This is to say, interstellar arks are really a big huge investment for the economies of intelligent life planets that have yet to travel a whole lot in its own solar system neighborhood.  In fact such an investment I would suspect that one weren't talking merely in the lower rank of double digit numbers concerning overall economy, but high double digit rankings, and getting this sort of political traction in a democratically aimed civilization (nearly impossible).   I know people have nostalgia for private investment models, but the reality of a lone eccentric billionaire funding interstellar colonies would be an absolute pipe dream, if a given economy weren't scaled as necessary, and interstellar travel weren't already a given possibility to begin with.

It seems the best odds for putting Earth life elsewhere might be selecting representative extremophile examples found here on this planet, firstly, if one were to do it, and then having such life proliferate one should hope in the given proto life habitat of such environment.  The likely scenario of squeezing a niche of life into alien turf, on the other hand, risks much possibility of finding Earth life hemmed in further and further until squeezed out of existence.  The problem here with a setting about planting this likely simple and/or single celled organism(s) on such planet, is that you might be waiting for a wee long time just to get the atmospheric conditions right...here you might be thinking catalysts, or anything to augment the process in speeding up the conditioning process, and this short cut is probably necessary if one were to start today here on Earth seeding elsewhere, or it seems even with catalysts and having started today on Earth, we could still be likely doomed before we ever set about planting the next batch of genetic seeds to terra form the planet further.  Thus it seems likely a  colony either has taken up residence on such planet in a given sheltered form, or it is sitting somewhere above the planet in orbit watching the biological ant farm build up a possibly murkier atmosphere down below.  I am imagining lots of smog here.  If all goes well, and the expectant biology has brought atmospheric temperature and pressure conditions to within adequate norms for the next round of biological deployment, a new biology is seeded randomly around the planet.  Given catalysts one might be hoping/waiting a few centuries under most progressive and optimal estimates, with huge evolutionary shortcuts having taken place, and merely using a line succession example, based upon Earth's evolutionary history...assuming again, we have a genetic representative example for a similar state system.  The advantage of seeding representative samples aren't in flourishing new evolutionary biology, although this might be expected even in the centuries of waiting, but that seeding sets about the process of evolving atmospheric habitability, and secondly one hasn't even gotten into microbial conditioning processes to build soil, but soil comes from transport mechanism...for instance, winds depositing loess (a silt, for instance, that are blown from river systems where erosion mechanism on this planet originally produced such silt...and one would remember that erosion processes again were likely billions of years in the making, meaning some sort of liquid media were precipitating on such planet for a very long time to produce the erosion that would in turn produce the silt, that would in part compose the soil).  Of course, on this planet one could try to accelerate erosion processes, hence, creating in theory something like a very stormy planet through artificial atmospheric intervention, but I am wondering how this might effect the biology that one had sown, even being an extremophile...hadn't guaranteed that an organism were able to withstand some other things.  An extremophile might, for instance, thrive in very warm or cold conditions but do poorly if given enough variability of extremes, and secondly how to produce storms in the first place in a proto life bearing atmosphere when outside the range for something like hosting water in a liquid state?  It seems you might try raining methane, but I am not so certain of all this, and I am still wondering if these extremophiles like wind at all.  The problem could be that we may not be able to task handle too many geo engineering changes at once but need to steadily and sequentially apply progressive changes to be added into the mix of transforming a planet into a life hosting planet in ways that are neither done in one shot.  This amounts to a lot of waiting around, until conditions are right, then phase transitioning, new models online, or in other words, Earthlings better have more than a couple decades in this case, at least more than just we've reached the end of our tether last generation bit before fleeing elsewhere!

    Now optimally, examining a random sample of soil on Earth consider this:

Soil has a mean prokaryotic density of roughly 10¹³ organisms per cubic meter, whereas the ocean has a mean prokaryotic density of roughly 10⁸ organisms per cubic meter.

Assuming a given colonist(s) have established into the last phase transition of installing earth life, it seems one considers the necessary condition of likely saturating microbial life, not just in small pockets here and there on alien turf, but everywhere.  This is likely why choosing a proto planet could be optimal if not for ethics relating to genocide on a given alien world for their life, but also considering that we might actually have the best success at seeding when having built the biosphere representing our own planet in terms of all conditions therein, and secondly in the genocide models, outside of trans genetically hybridizing your own biology to adapt to their living biology, it seems that one still has to contend with the added problem of terra forming that planet to your own biology's specifications, or in other words, I imagine, not as likely kill everything plant your stuff and setup shop easiness, and then this gets back to the original problems owing to adaptation through an artificial arms race/genocide model, doing so only risks the higher chance of elastic rebound of any indigenous alien life only coming back, but coming back more scarily and retributive in nature relative to another invasive life trying to throw everything else away, or having depopulated such an Earth like world in the first place, requires the sort of cataclysm that weren't conducive to Earth life investing in such a place for any length of time to come...what maybe a hundred thousand or more years before you could come back after you nuked a planet to make un inhabitable by anything?  Of course, there is a possibility if life out there isn't so invasive and generally ambivalent to our own, in the sense of considering our life as benign, we might do okay in small population colonies, but likely in a very limited population context, and one should imagine, likely leaving the legacy that some lone voyagers having set off for some new world without so much of a sustaining and successive fleet of new world colony inhabitant hopefuls to through sheer numbers at loss.  It seems throwing sheer numbers for loss, marks something of the transition period, for instance, here on Earth for the migrations of old world to the new world, and with this also neither in absence to all the struggles and perils in doing so if such were likely true in cosmic sense.    The more optimal well thought out plan, still rabbits all over the place in so far as phase transitioning a planet into a given habitable place until alas, the humidity is on average about right, the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere is about right, the amount of oxygen is about right, atmospheric pressure and temperature are just about right, and earth life is already teeming in the microbial sense all about such planet, and so much more.  Here, for all the work done, the last equivalent minutes are spent populating such planet with bigger biology likely from one should imagine a cryogenically  frozen genetic seed bank.  All of this life came from test tubes or the equivalent!  But owing to costs in all the transport, likely nothing living ever set foot off the planet Earth, it just weren't so efficient transferring genetic memory in this form.    A science fiction script might have also been written, albeit not nearly as exciting to the tunes of reality in the following fashion:  Early explorers searching for life in the cosmos were actually autonomous machines, searching for the clues that could be fashioned for honing on systems harboring life bearing planets.   These machines may not have been actually as gargantuan as depicted in human fictional stories, but much more compact, and modest in terms of their capabilities, some maybe no larger than an average American home, and some even much smaller (for purely exploratory purposes).  Some were designed to out last the end of humanity and keep going if at least attempting to seed and deposit life as much as it could through out the cosmos, letting nature take its course.  The Prometheus model in so ways makes more sense in terms of seeding here, since if it is low cost to disperse genetic seeds anywhere and everywhere to some possible place that can potentially harbor life, there is a greater chance of neither sowing one's seeds solely in one basket.  Letting nature do the work of evolving any given rudimentary seed into something greater avoids all the expense of having to condition and release biology in the right sequences, adding that maybe if something like switches could be intelligently designed into supposedly extraneous genetic code, reaching a phase point could activate a new genetic sequence, thus at least attempting to stack the odds towards producing some intelligent life (if it were possible in the engineering context).  Low work overhead coupled with maximum outreach is truly the way to spreading life throughout the cosmos, and avoiding human cargo, means that the fleets neither deal with all matter of problem in travelling either the pace of a turtle or the problems of deceleration and accelerating living cargo (which likely should be no more than 1 g for any duration), but non living cargo can be accelerated at much higher rates for transport, and hence in terms of reaching relativistic speeds much faster sending non living versus living cargo.  The odds ironically for first alien contact may actually be with machines by the way designed by aliens as opposed to any living alien biology if it were intelligent I imagine, but that presupposing something like the wormhole's existence.  Sending living biology is expensive otherwise even if it is also unromantic not doing so.

Electronic harassment (recycling discussion)

   A recent Atlantic article mentioning some of these issues actually re inspired me on some out loud thoughts on this subject, not that I hadn't considered this previously although such could be entirely from the lay viewpoint.

One in discussion, perhaps, as a mention to more critical aspects, neither given to any inclination of out right refuting claims, there are, perhaps, well reasoned thoughts to consider the likely validity of a claim.  The main point in this, that I have argued previously, were concerning the matter of if, if ever, such technology existed that allowed for some permissible entry into the mind controlling and producing say anything like an auditory hallucination or visual hallucination as I've seen suggested, it would seem the necessary inducement of neuronal responses are highly varied and extremely complex in doing so, or in other words, with all the likely errant microwave signals floating around, or even chaotic high level cosmic energy likely floating around (that we've generally evolved alongside) that a human mind might construct signal coherence in the form of neurons firing in proper ordering producing the likely effect experienced that sufferers describe.  A second part of this argument focuses on the necessary technology in doing so even in reading potentially the signatures and patterns of the brain, and mostly this focuses upon, for instance, as in the case of magnetic resonance imaging, the large scale structure of such device, and its limitations otherwise in usage.  If you happen to see such a machine, firstly, you'd notice not only this being quite large, but that with its given scale, limitations requiring that any imaging measurement should require a patient to be place inside the machine, and thus neither operable at any particular distance.  Thus a machine scaled as large as MRI being limited as it were in so far as technology seems to be a potential clue indicator of the limitations of any potential electromagnetic device alone.  At least as far as we know, for instance, there doesn't seem to be any possibility that a wearable or chip implant would cut it in so far as producing pin point magnetic moments in the brain, or electric moments that would necessarily produce neuronal signaling.  Then it would appear, as has been argued, that some medicine or chemical compound might be introduced aiding in the augmentation of any given signaling process.  I personally find this potentially suspect, if only given the potentially to any problems with signal dispersion, and potentially how one might trigger say, if possible, a chemical compound attached to a neuron, one neuron in distinction to other neurons that would replicate pathway sequencing that might be found through some higher level stimulation (e.g., all the stimulated neurons associated say with the an auditory experience of a given voice).  To produce this sort of articulated neuronal response, likely would need on the other hand a precision based transmission source, neither degenerating and dispersing likely over space, and where each attachment point (to a given neuron) were key designated in some manner.  The ability to do this?  Given there are likely as many neurons in your brain as there are stars in the galaxy, this is a big catalog in the making if it were possible.

There have been studies, for instance, in trans genetically modifying the brains of mice, where making mice neurons photo receptive supposedly.  In these cases, it would appear rudimentary signaling between neurons have been achieved, but again limited success has been achieved on this point.  Light sources or lasers, in particular, with a bulky and quite obviously cumbersome transmitter source attached to the mice, however, would indicate limitation with respect to what such a device were capable of achieving.  More likely in such case, between individual neurons, it could be possible for present day technology to manipulate neurons, but not likely to manipulate the huge cascade of neurons in the right succession and pathways necessary to form some of the high level experiences described.  More likely on the other hand, a government might have better luck, if a conspiracy were true, with something like ergot, a known fungus whose toxin were known to produce LSD like hallucinogenic effects than stimulation through some direct neuronal contact procedure.  As it turns out there have been historical findings suggesting a possibility for truth on these matters (see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_Pont-Saint-Esprit_mass_poisoning  )
The other possibility being a drug like ergot, one should imagine, potentially used an adjunct to any particular electronic device, but likely only producing generalized likely neurological effects.
At this point, it seems less likely, however, that present day technology is capable of doing much beyond say reading rudimentary thoughts (and at this doing so) with the aid of building up a library of a given patient's mind in order to understand the neurons responsible for a particular thought.  In other words, building up any sort of sophisticated mind reading library, is likely time consuming, and technology much to cumbersome in scale to really to be of adequate use right now.

However, I predict, that technology through say trans genetics could potentially make for the potential reality and concern that our minds may not as likely be under our control as much as we like to think in some potential future, and this literally being the case.

A discriminatory law needed?!

It seems if a business refuses the right to serve a customer, or acts quite rudely to a customer, it is certainly the right of the business.  Although I don't know when I've heard a Republican conceding that 'the business is always right and not the customer!'  At least every business with customer service always trained its employees to treat customers with respect but not only respect building loyalty and anything else which gains a customer's confidence.  Recent legislation, seems to overtly run counter intuitive to the notion of a free market place and open business, as though gays were like Soviet communists that potentially should be treated as though through having an economic embargo in place, and sadly this weren't a deal in which the markets were foreign but entirely of a domestic nature.  Sure, I've personally encountered at times rude employees at a place of business, and understandably my customary response were to never return.   Of course, there is no law needed usually to protect businesses in hiring rude employees or for that matter a business owner that treats people rudely because they dislike someone for whatever prejudice.  Although typically doing so, much to the contrary in the past, as is likely today, might actually imperil a business in so far as customers.  Then those that choose not to serve customers because of some inherent dislike for a customer might find a customer understandably complaining to the Better Business Bureau, and if word were to get out about systemic treatment, it seems a business suffers, or likely if the business is just flat out poorly run in so far as the treatment shown to customers, why should there be laws to protect such business, and what can the law really do other than at face value we support you for the right that you supposedly have, but in essence comes across as 'bad business'...the law can't force customers to shop at this business, even if the business manages to set up shop with a fail job of a business.  It seems the law is some how urging the American people to respect a business?  Why?  A business that is composed of people, and not defined as a person alone?  And what obligation do customer's have of such business if they rightly choose not to shop at such business?  Again the question arises, 'Why is a law needed to protect discrimination in the first place?'   Laws such as these seem to evoke not only the sorts of widespread cultural practices found, for instance, more commonly in the American South in previous decades in so far as discrimination, but also entails something of an absurdity.  Customer's don't have to respect a business because of  business leadership deciding that it openly supports a specific type of customers it chooses to support or not support, and what exactly is there gained in such a process?

Then absurdly this also brings up another notion which is that businesses are somehow obligated to serve something that they don't want to serve, and thirdly as though businesses were under duress from religious persecution for choosing to exist in a public marketplace manner.  I suppose I as a musician an album could whine and cry about being discriminated against for the failure of sales in my album, and maybe a law is passed saying the state protects my right to beliefs, but did it help my sales?  I suppose I could cry out online for bigoted philanthropy welfare!  Lastly its hard to imagine gays walking into a business and launching a lawsuit for poor service, or being refused service.  I am wondering where public tyranny is occurring for the persecuted persecutors here, or if this isn't ever more reason to be cynical of b.s. political stunts pulled in defining discrimination for what it supposedly not? 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2015/0402/Noose-on-Duke-campus-Do-colleges-have-a-growing-racism-problem

Or someone happenstance from any particular belief exploiting racial tensions while attempting to provoke them. 

Money raised for bigots

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-04-02/more-than-260-000-raised-for-indiana-pizza-place-that-would-not-cater-gay-weddings

Although one has to give a hand to the camaraderie shown by bigots alike.  If it weren't a George Zimmerman raising well over a hundred thousand dollars, and likely at this potentially commanding more income draw than a former president for poor art, it seems being part of the persecuted mainstream likely wins accolade!

    Cruel neo liberalism, on the other hand, seems to shed itself of any hint of liability all the time.  At least being so much a defender of democratic principles seems more to the calling of potentially one's sacrificed calling to crucifixion.  Twitter poster, for example, offers the "Life of Brian".

    At least to sense where popular priorities on the matter of art or business exist here.

Don't Blame Christianity where is there a Church whose pulpit isn't government controlled?

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/4/dont-blame-christianity-for-your-homophobia.html

 Sadly if you live in Egypt you know what I am talking about because it is overt and more clearly given.  Keeping in mind, that over there to control extremism, and over here, to apparently enhance it!
   Although I would point out the general origins of sexual orientation discrimination has often, for instance, been attributed to select biblical passages at least in so far as 'religious' thinking.  On the other hand, this having been argued interpreted as different relative the likely interpretation and meaning that might have been implied then.  For instance, Sodomite may have actually referred little to people that engaged in specific sexual intercourse practices or having relation to sexual orientation practices, but instead were referring to a crooked and corrupt peoples engaged in any number of spiritual offenses, and likely much the same for ethical considerations. As to offense, I am referring here in the context of liars, murderers, thieves, and a litany of anything else applicable.  Using the term Sodomite, might have provoked some highly political screwed up church in Topeka to protest at the families of deceased soldiers, not because the adherents believed that a war were bad, or on the issue of overall moral strains running in this country, but instead because the soldiers were defending gays, or one should wonder, as American political strains of Christianity not only take on the guise of something not Christian, televangelism then having shored up the selection of religious faith itself.  If it weren't ordinary commonplace sins, anything of relating to the Ten Commandments, and then likely the messaging regarding extraordinary sin such as homosexuality.  Here extraordinary sins, rank seemingly at the highest of biblical offenses, although its quite difficult for one to understand exactly why?  :D   If the sins amounted to declines in supposedly fertility, it shouldn't be as much a problem that gays contribute to the added stresses and strains of a world population in general, or in this case, such sin seems to relate as much to any belief that might be given from criminally minded lunatics that others would define as a cult.  Irrational in many respects, but minding that in such a world, slavery were justified for all sorts of irrational beliefs.  More so it seems if something of religious law were conceived it were done much like the natural force and work of biological imperatives.  If given a population the inclination to self associate and discriminate should somehow be at times a warping and strong characteristic, but then in terms of human societies, such imperative becomes entirely archaic to the notion of existence or given by necessity.   Varied biological traits, for instance, make little difference in human populations, if it weren't directly effecting to sexual reproduction, and likely none of the survival stresses and strains would place so much demand on physical traits homogeneity, or in other words, the distinction of peoples being white, black, brown, yellow, purple, and so forth arose precisely when humans had evolved to be smart enough to manage their affairs intelligent enough so much that these weren't given to the strict dictum of nature, but ironically now less than useful psychological selectivity traits would be left behind only adding to the inclination of human populations in creating 'religious' notions reinforcing psychological trait characteristics because the inclinations of selectivity hadn't exactly passed even if physical traits were changing.
     Yes even proponents of slavery argued that inherent inferiority of a given race of people, and adding to this superiority of another race along similar lines, even if this were based upon much given ignorance.  While adding to this a religious component, which made slavery morally justifiable in such minds.  If there were anything of religion to be blamed, one should offer this weren't exactly religion, as an argument against religion for this sake, but an argument against a facet of humanity engaged as it were in the tradition of warping and distorting belief systems to conform to prevailing cultural notions, or especially where involving worldly power, the power of say residing in leaders, and ruling elites in saying what is or isn't.  Of course, it seems more unsettling to promote any religious notion which is unsettling to the operations of government here, and thus, more convenient to pick up on religious moral grounds that speak of convenience.  A popular religious strain, thus, promoting in such an American day, could sound after all like any other extremism found in the middle east, and ironically given so much time and public media access in saying otherwise.  On the other hand, when Christianity is given so much by the tele evangelism translated into big brother reality show that happenstance in previous time eras might have been a few shades off from Deliverance, one understandably questions what is the 'brand' of belief given by Americans.  Are they really so much believers like I, or is trying to understand such about as likely as trying to understand any other mess in the world.  By the way to the Phil Robertson's in the world, a belief that there is nothing wrong with homosexual peoples, could as well be logically equivalent to 'not having Jesus', to being an anything goes sort of psycho killer and so forth.  These right wing pseudo religious governmental nut jobs though have been saying this for decades about me (as far as I know I might have been the anti christ at birth to these folks), and apparently can't even bother to user their own court systems rightly.  Certainly they tried coding a long time ago, Bob Bibb and all but that were supposedly history?!   Of course, if it weren't for some evidently taking advantage a decade ago, sanitary so called 'religious' culture, a number of boys would be framed/scapegoated for crimes they hadn't committed, one placed on death row until exoneration some decades later having taken place.    It would appear the state of Arkansas never really issued a formal apology as of my last reading.  All the more in some perverted notion of religion for the sake of mankind, 'finding Jesus' should be a matter between life and death for worldly existence.  Hell bound hardliners find themselves obsessed it seems.