Why Protest the Church?

Gay activists are protesting several churches, most pronounced being the LDS Church, because they are angry about losing the ability to wed each other in California. Members of the LDS Church contributed nearly half of the fund to support Prop 8 in California. It is fair enough that gay activists should be angry about losing an election. It is also fair enough for them to believe that they have the right to marry each other. Although I disagree with them, I can concede that they believe it is their right.

I believe that it is not a fundamental right for a man to marry a man. A person's homosexual tendencies are certainly something they have a right to act upon in the privacy of their own home. I do not believe those tendencies make that person any different from me in the eyes of the law. Therefore, I do not believe the law should extend to a person with homosexual tendencies any more protection than it extends to me. I do not have the right to marry a man, two women, or a goat. I do agree that, by law, those rights could be extended to me. But I do not believe that they have to be extended to me. That is because they are not fundamental rights, such as the right to speak freely without censorship from the government.

But even that right, as fundamental as it is, can be restricted where it interferes with substantial and critical societal norms, such as safety, and in some instances, decency. For example, one is not free to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because to extend that right would harm those in the theater and cause the government to exert resources that it otherwise shouldn't have to. This is just one example of a societal concern that trumps certain fundamental rights, and is not exclusive. There are numerous other societal concerns that would trump other fundamental rights.

Marriage is one of those rights that is beneficial to society, but which society can define. If society determines that certain types of marriage are harmful to society, then society has every right and responsibility to curb the exercise of the right to marry. In order for society to make that determination, certain elements in that society must be free to exert influence and pressure, in other words, to exercise its right to speek freely on matters of societal concern. This is what happened here.

Now, gay activists have the same right to try to exert influence and pressure on society to see things its way. They certainly exercised that right, and are continuing to do so. What I find rather humorous on one hand and hypocritical on the other, is that they feel that they should attempt to exert that influence on churches. I find this humorous because I consider it to be a great waste of their time and energy. See, the Church believes that God's will is that we should attempt to preserve the sanctity of marriage. There are a number of reasons for this, and you are certainly welcome to speak with a member of the LDS Church to find out why. But if the Church believes this is God's will, and the Church believes that it is led by a prophet of God, then all the protesting in the world will not change the Church's stance.

There are two things I find hypocritical. First, this ridiculous allegation that the Church and its members are bigoted. This coming from a group who is protesting because it thinks religion has no place in this debate. People who espouse homosexuality as OK have adopted a religious stance, whether they want to call it by some other term. They believe that it is OK, and we believe that it is not. But, in the rhetoric, the bigotry comes only from those who claim that it is not OK?

Second, gay activists are calling for the IRS to strip the Church of its tax exempt status. Yet, how many of their organizations are paying taxes on the funds they raised in opposition to the proposition? A church is a social institution, established to promote social values. When those social values are threatened in the political arena, must the Church be expected to simply stand aside, while those values which it promotes and holds dear are threatened? Look at the flip side. Gay organizations are established to promote societal values. When those values are threatened in the political arena, must those organizations be expected to simply stand aside?

All I ask is for some intellectual honesty. If you decide to embrace a lifestyle that you know is offensive to certain religions, don't go demanding that those religions change their doctrines to accept your lifestyle. Live what you believe, try for political change, and try to convince society to accept you. But don't demand acceptance where you, at the same time, refuse to offer it.

Scary Thoughts for Halloween

Remember when the Reid and Pelosi wanted be the de facto president? Remember that? They thought that if they legislated an end to the war, the real President shouldn't be able to call them on it. Remember that? (Check this old post.) Fortunately, they quickly discovered a small thing we call the Constitution which provided a little check on the legislature. The dynamic duo were muffled and the war continued unhindered.

With a vote for Obama, there will be very little need for that pesky little Constitution. There will no longer be a check on the majority. And those now in power who have been chomping at the bit to get busy spreading the wealth (other's wealth) will have nothing to stop them. Oh sure, there's that pesky little thing we call the Supreme Court, but because it is conservative, it is pretty bound by that little constitution thing to deciding only constitutional things. It can't veto stupid legislation, or legislation that merely destroys that pesky little thing we call capitalism.

If the pollsters have their way, we will soon have a socialist lawyer running the "free" world. He and his ilk have long longed to be more like Europe, to place equality above liberty. He uses words such as "middle class" and "wealthy" to avoid pesky little words such as "proletariat" and "bourgoise" to avoid letting his redness slip.

McCain concerned conservatives because of his willingness to sell out, er, reach out, across the aisle. However, his history has demonstrated that he supports the traditional American dream. That is that we can pursue whatever legitimate course of employment or venture we think will get us where we want to be. This requires an adherence to the basic concept that, except for government's inept interference, the markets will adjust themselves, the wealthy, and those growing wealthy, will employ others, in their quest to acquire more wealth. Based on McCain's history, we can feel somewhat comfortable that when he reaches across the aisle, it will be to those Democrats who also adhere to these ideals.

On the other hand, Obama's history leaves us with little hope that we can attain what he and the current elite already have. The best we can do is hope for a few crumbs of bread. As a member of the extreme upper-lower/lower-middle class, I want to hope for better. I want to hope that I can eventually see success in business, such that I am making good money. While I am not looking to become rich, I would sure like to become so should good fortune fall my way. I don't see that under Obama. His history of associations and comments seems to speak otherwise.

I know a man who told his prospective employer that he didn't want to be paid more than $xx,000. Why? Our already existing socialist programs have been very good to him and his family. Should he make more than that, he stands to lose it all, which would require that he make much more in order to make up for those benefits. See, socialism creates large gaps between just getting by and getting ahead. As the government gives, we can get by on $xx,000, but if we make more than that, we actually do worse, unless we can get to $xxx,000. Since that is a very difficult gap to overcome, why try? Even if we do, we are then rewarded with a much higher tax burden "to help those who are following". So we then have to hit $x,000,000 before we can really breathe. The more we socialize, the more difficult that gap becomes.

That's about all my scary thoughts for now.

This wig hurts.

America's New Top...Smurfette?

I was just cruisin' thru the wwweb when I spotted this (highlighted for your convenience):


Out of the millions of searches being done... Smurfs?!!

Well, OK...

I must admit, its been a while, but I really enjoyed them, even though they were subliminal pawns of Communism infiltrating Saturday morning cartoons to indoctrinate young minds to overthrow the establishment in violent revolution and become all equals in the glorious new Order of the All Things Red. I figured I was safe since the Smurfs were blue, and they were all in love with Smurfette (who was pretty sexy, even for a Smurf). I didn't think Communists were allowed to love.

I think the real story turned out to be that the Smurfs were the subliminal pawns of commune hippies, man, like infiltrating "Saturday. Morning. Cartoons." (wink, wink), man, so, like young minds can be, like, be free, y'know, and all individual, like, so they can, like, all grow their hair long and moppy and wear round sunglasses and play folk music on guitars and citars, thus frustrating the whole "establishment", man, thereby stickin' it to "The Man", man, and fight the whole oncoming ice age thing by then getting "jobs" and "careers" and buying SUV's so they can, like, warm the planet and save us all from total extinction and annihilation, man.

Whichever story was true, I guess it worked.

Persecution or Prosecution

Disclaimer: I am a Mormon. I do not support the practice of polygamy as a religious proscription. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the real Mormons) have not condoned the practice for over a hundred years. In fact, the Church has very diligently cleansed itself of polygamous sympathizers. I do not sympathize with the FLDS group (a breakaway from the Church at about the time the Church stopped the practice) in that I do not think that they are doctrinally correct by practicing polygamy.

Having said all that, what is occurring in Texas is religious persecution. The phone call was all that was needed for authorities to sweep in with all the firepower and grand standing of Waco and kidnap children and women, virtually putting an end to an unpopular religious sect. If they were really worried about the sexual abuse, they would have carefully sought out the men and mothers who were actively participatory in such abuse, and left the rest alone. But no. In all their religious zeal, social workers, law enforcement officers, and Baptist bus drivers "rescued" these poor, misguided, 19th Century homemakers and children from a life of protection against the outside evils of the world, throwing them instead into our "enlightened" society with its permissive promiscuity, wink-wink religiosioty, and "our young'uns' well-being is so important to us we leave them with a stranger 10 hours a day so we can afford our brick-and-granite mansions with no yard just to keep up with the Joneses" mentality.

It is interesting that we forbid gay marriage, but we permit homosexual and adulterous activities, fraught with dangerous diseases, broken families and bastardized children, and child sexual abuse; yet we outlaw polygamy, the emphasis of which is about strengthening and supporting the family and caring for children. Yes, it carries with it the potential for child abuse as is alleged in this case, but so does any relationship where children are involved. Child abuse happens. It should be pursued and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because we do not like child abusers. Children are special and sacred.

I am not advocating that we should sanction polygamy, just as I do not advocate that we should sanction homosexual marriage. Marriage is between one man and one woman. But we do not outlaw homosexual activity, nor even adulterous activity. Why do we outlaw polygamy? Because we are a religiously intolerant people. We have our First Amendment, and sometimes it means something. But majority religions have always felt threatened by minority religions. So as long we keep such statutes on the books, we can summon the power of the State to swoop in to put an end to these unpopular sects and organizations that challenge any beliefs with we have become so comfortable.

When the Church fought the anti-bigamy laws in the courts, they argued First Amendment issues. Today, there is a stronger case for Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection arguments. It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. I can see Supreme Court arguments on the matter. Although I do not know whether they would prevail, I think they could be very compelling.

Love Is

When I was in high school, curiosity brought me to a meeting of Students Against Driving Drunk. I've never been a fan of drunk drivers, and it always made me mad that they were getting off with a slap on the wrist and a wink. I was soon thereafter approached by a school counselor to represent the school at the state level. While I was tempted to accept the offer, there was something about the program that really bothered me. I finally realized that it was the focus. Driving Drunk. It was actually more about students trying to persuade drunk students from driving. For me, it seemed more logical to persuade students from drinking. Then I wouldn't have much problem with them driving. That, of course, didn't go over so well. Students liked to drink. Or so they thought. I don't know many of them who enjoyed the flavor. I think they liked to drink because they thought they liked to drink - because they thought they were supposed to like to drink. Maybe I am wrong.

I didn't like to drink. Neither did my friends. In fact, we can still recall most of our parties. We had a great time. We had alternatives. For us, we didn't focus on whether we were going to drink or not. In fact, it very seldom came up. We just liked getting together and finding things to do. No one had to worry about who was going to bring the beer, or how they were going to get it. We were more focused on what movies we were going to rent, or whose house we were going to hang out at, or who was going to drive while we cruised Memorial, or the Fontana.

Nor did we worry about birth control, or sexually transmitted diseases, or whether we were going to have sex, or whether we were going to deprive ourselves of sex. We knew we would wait. We also tried to avoid getting too promiscuous. Why? Because we were learning the value of a relationship that was built on friendship and courtship. We didn't use the term "courting", but we lived by its connotations. We understood what sex was. We knew what sexual activity was. But we valued respect above all else. And we found that our relationships with the opposite sex were stronger for it. We fell in love. We recognized love. Love, for us, was not an activity we arrived at, but an emotion we experienced on both long- and short-terms. We had girlfriends. And while we sure each one was "the One", we cherished the sweet, innocent emotion that bloomed as we developed a pining for each other. We had long-distance, short-distance, marathon and sprint romances. But our focus was not on whether we would score. Rather, we focused on whether this one would bloom; whether this would be "the One".

Abstinence education struck me as a little odd. It began just as I was leaving school, so I never really got into it. But from what I knew of it, and from what I had been taught growing up, I saw the wisdom in it, and was happy to agree with its message. But, as beautiful as the message was, it was certainly vulnerable to snide and snappy comedic attacks. And it seemed almost doomed. Why? I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Tonight, I can. For the same reason I had a hard time with the SADD - the focus. Read this article for more. I thought it laid it out pretty good. Abstinence is fine, but innocent romance is where its at.

At Home in Dagobah

Just took a little self-analysis and found myself likened to the great sage...

So, howzabout you?

Abstract first

Bato,

The notion that the founders did not intend for organized religion to be completely separated from government can be supported by the fact that for many years after the implementation of the Constitution, and even after the First Amendment, several states, including Virginia, I believe, continued to have a state sponsored religion. This can be attributed in part to the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment was not even a suggestion at the time. The Fourteenth Amendment had the effect of extending the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to then, those protections applied solely to actions of the federal government. Therefore, individual states could continue to apply local laws and actions as their citizens would tolerate. (Unfortunately, this got out of hand, i.e. Jim Crow laws, which led to the Civil War and Reconstruction, etc., etc.)

Further evidence of the intent of the founders is still witnessed in the halls of Congress prior to every assembly, where a prayer is offered, as well as the traditional swearing in on the Bible, the official motto, etc.

They did not fear the effect of religion in general on the government. Rather, they respected the wishes of the citizenry to choose the society in which they wished to live.

Sadly, that has become less and less. Public schools had traditionally been governed by local communities. Unfortunately, racial bigotry and hatred forced the federal government to act. While smaller infringements had occurred prior to this, the civil rights movement exploded all traditional notions of the role of the federal government. The benefits of a more educated citizenry began to manifest itself, chipping more and more away at the arguments for state and local control.

At the same time, activists became less and less "religious," and having discovered the power of the courts in creating more immediate social change, it was only natural that the bastion of established religion would be the next area to come under attack. The tool of choice, of course, was the only branch of government that was not immediately responsible to the people. By taking it to the courts, those citizens who would be affected by the decisions would have no immediate recourse, effectively preventing them from voting on those issues.

Even though this thought is not a complete one, it will have to do for now. School has started back up again, which means life gets pretty hectic now. As much as I love this conversation, I will only be able to contribute to it every now and then.

One more thing, though... the definition of religion was the point of my original post on this topic. To discuss it is not a side trip, but sort of the whole purpose. Feel free to comment.

To Bato

Thank you, Bato, for your comments regarding my thoughts regarding religion. While I may agree with your first point, regarding "knowing sinners", it does not change the analysis. One would be hard pressed to find someone who lives the tenets of their life philosophy to exactness. However, what one perceives to be truth influences the way one approaches life. For example, one who believes that the atonement of Christ covers him regardless of his sins, so long as he has "accepted Christ into his heart" at some point prior to dying might approach life more haplessly than one who believes that the atonement applies only so far as he is making a conscious effort to model his life after Christ. It does not mean that he will not sin, which is to say that he will consciously do something he knows to be against the will of God. But he will be less likely to follow thru with many conscious sins that the former might. (Please do not take this as a blanket assumption for either case.) To go a little farther, the former might be more willing to compromise his values in the political arena, where the latter might be more cautious.

You can see, then, if you were to broaden to this to the differences between those who believe in God and those who do not, how one's perception of truth influences his actions. It does not dictate his actions, but merely influences them.

As to your second point, the trouble that the founding fathers had with "the Church" regarding its role in government, was its tendency to exclude all others, which leads to persecution and restriction of others' liberties. While they might have had their personal problems with religion, they generally accepted that a man's religion is his own business, and were not generally adverse to its existence. Their intent with the first amendment was to prevent this exclusion of religion by other religions. Which brings me back to the original intent of my post to which you responded. The religion of "non-religionists" finds itself to be beyond the reach of the first amendment in its attempt to exclude other religions from the public sector.

I will address your third point when I have some time to think about what I was thinking about at the time I wrote that. It was probably in response to something I had read recently, but I don't know. I just don't remember the context right now.

I am glad to have gotten a response regarding this, and to have some challenge to my thinking. It helps me to better formulate my thoughts.

On Bias Against Mormons

I tried mushrooms once, and I don't like them. Yuck! They are a fungus, grey, and slimy. And they smell funny. I can't imagine that anyone would eat them. Besides, I heard they contain some magic stuff that makes a person get all loopy. So, I can't imagine voting for anyone who would choose to eat mushrooms. They might get all loopy and make some boneheaded decision.

I'll tell you what is good, though. Green bean casserole! Mmmmmm. My wife makes a really good one, using french cut beans and fried onions. She won't tell me what sauce she uses, but boy is it good. Whatever is in it must be some pretty good tasting stuff.

Oh, but this is about Mormons. Sorry.

I saw a John Wayne movie once, and he ran across some Mormons, and asked them if they wore those hats to hide their horns. People who have horns on their heads so that they have to wear hats shouldn't be president. You just can't trust them to get all their facts correct.

No Religion

Is there really such a thing as no religion? John Lennon seemed to think it would be a wonderful world. What exactly did he envision? People wandering aimlessly with no set of values or principles upon which to live their lives?
But wait, says the philosopher, religion is defined as a belief in a higher power, or the mystical, or in phenomena. Says who?! I find it interesting that religion is being defined by those who disagree with people who claim to be religious. Religious people don't define religion. If one were to analyze all these arguments about religion and government, separation of church and state, etc., one would find some very interesting definitions of religion. Most are defined by secularists and humanists, and other philosphers, who are trying to remove themselves, and everyone else, from "religion." They are using the same arguments that have been used for millenia by anyone trying to extinguish others. To fight your opposition, you have to define them.
The problem is, religion is basically a system or set of beliefs upon which one bases his actions and attitudes. If one believes in God, or a god, or multiple gods, or undefined gods, one conforms his actions to the dictates of conscience which arise out of that belief. One who thinks there might be a god, but doesn't care (agnostic), lives his life on that assumption. One who believes in God, and recognizes God's compassion as what drives God, will conform his actions to that assumption that God is a compassionate God; while one who recognizes God's judgment as being most important will conform his life to that assumption. Likewise, one who believes there is no God, or gods, or supreme being, or whatever, will base his life on that assumption. Perhaps he will think that man is supreme, or he will think that mankind is no more than a fortunate animal. It doesn't matter, for he will conform his actions to whatever his assumption about life might be. He then has a religion. One cannot shake religion, just as one cannot shake the need for oxygen or food. Religion happens. It is there, and not going away just because one does want to be classified as religious.
Why do I bring this up? Well, the first Amendment to our Constitution establishes that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The great downfall of our society has been the assumption that this meant that anything smacking of organized religion does not belong in our government. But where does it mention organized religion? It does not. If one is convinced that his moral dictates require him to seek office, or to vote in a certain way, or to impose a certain value upon society, then for a court to prevent him from doing so solely because his viewpoint is considered to align with an established religion is a violation of the First Amendment. For in so doing, the court is "establishing" the "religion" of the opposite view.
While I have been pondering upon this concept for some time, I must admit that it is a difficult one to explain. Perhaps in my mind, it is becoming more clear, while my explanation of it is faulty. If anyone reading this can see where this concept might be going, feel free to comment. I'll continue working on it.