I realize that it has been a while since my last bloviation. I guess between election fatigue and finals fatigue, and the low turnout to this site, I just haven't paid it much mind. I don't have much to add right now, except to simply hope that all of you enjoy the beautiful spirit of this wonderful, miraculous holy-day season and feel of God's love for you.
P.S. Here's a fun tongue-twister to keep you busy this week:
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.
There is a long-standing social rule that permits speaking ill of another so long as you, at some point during the conversation, bless that person's heart.
Ted Kennedy, bless his heart, is nothing more than the fortunate son of a wealthy businessman who knew how to buy his way into politics. While my heart goes out to him as a person for having to deal with such tragic news, there will be no love lost at his departure from the political arena. The stations all played his eulogy while he is still breathing. But there are many things they 'forgot' to include in all Ted's accomplishments, not the least of which was his beating the wrap for driving drunk and leaving a woman to die in a river. There was also his overcoming the problems most people face when caught cheating on their bar exams. More subtle among his accomplishments was his keen ability to avoid the controversy most senators would be subjected to were they to publicly call judicial nominees 'neanderthals' at a press conference. From what I could gather from the many eulogies was that he is most notable for outliving his brothers.
John McCain, bless his heart, is now coming under fire for being supported by a Christian minister who doesn't believe in Islam. Maybe this minister, bless his heart, could have been less controversial if, instead of using his pulpit to call for Christians to be Christians and not Islams, he had called for blacks to rise up against the white man. You know, though, if these ministers would just stick to teaching Christians how to be Christian, and not how not to be something else, or what political stand they should take, it seems they could do more good and avoid all this controversy. Like one wise leader once said, when asked why his church doesn't take political sides, "We teach the people good principles, and they govern themselves."
The California Supreme Court, bless their hearts, overturned the overwhelming will of the people to give the making of a lifestyle choice special constitutional protection. I think the Washington supreme court got it right when they held that a gay man has as much of a right to marry a gay woman as does a straight man or a straight woman. The law doesn't allow a straight man to marry another man, so there is no equal protection problem. The courts have to be very careful when they start subjecting marriage and family laws to strict constitutional scrutiny, as most courts have admitted that most such laws would fail. Those laws have traditionally been reserved to the states, and have been largely exempt from strict constitutional scrutiny for very good reasons. They serve society well by establishing a foundation for its perpetuity and moral guidance.
Our editorial page editor in Fayetteville, bless his heart, thinks that those Conservatives who want to make the California supreme court's (bless their hearts) decision a central issue in the campaign are interfering with the political process because Hussein Obama, bless his heart, thinks, we should instead be focusing on the major... social... ills... of our time. (?!) Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, too. If gay marriage is not a major social ill...?
Let me know who else's heart needs a blessing.
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.
Let me retract a statement I made a while back. I once said that I was somewhat comfortable with any of the Republican candidates. Well...
Huck is a whiner. Huck is vying for that VP spot. Huck is a religious bigot. Huck knows he has no chance of winning, but he also knows that so long as he is in the race, no Mormon will get the nod. Huck is disingenuous. So is McCain, for that matter. "Oh" they cry, "Romney is spending millions of dollars on attack ads." Well, for starters, if having your record highlighted is a negative thing, then maybe you should reconsider your record. Second, Mitt doesn't have the luxury of free media time to speak negatively of his opponents. Those two don't need to spend the money, all they have to do is say "I have decided to not go negative. And to prove it, here is a negative ad I would have used. Go ahead and take a look at it, and feel free to write about it." Or "Romney is so mean." Or "Romney is a Mormon."
I used to think McCain was a straight shooter and a real stand up guy. I do not think that anymore. McCain is a bitter, arrogant, crusty old man who will say anything to get the vote. But I do not trust him, and I do not like him.
I used to defend Huckabee here in Arkansas. But he is a disingenuous, mean-spirited populist who does not understand that freedom comes from a more strict adherence to the Constitution and ideals that founded this nation. He refuses to place his own ambitions above conservative ideals.
I am not sure what Super Tuesday will produce. I am holding out for a miracle.
But I am embracing for an embarrassingly disappointing presidential race.
Mitt Romney: "Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
Translation: "Mitt Romney does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
Mitt Romney: Religions differ on their beliefs about Christ, and "each religion has its own unique doctrines."
Translation: "Mormons are not Christians"
Following this logic, let's try this one...
Bible: Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, submitting his will to God; whereupon God spoke "Behold My Beloved Son"; whereupon the the Spirit descended like a dove.
Translation: Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are one.
Christ: "Except a man be born of the water and of spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God"
Translation: "Baptism is highly encouraged, but if your particular brand of mainstream Christianity doesn't require it, you'll probably be OK... unless your Mormon, in which case, although baptism is an essential ordinance for your salvation, and you are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, you won't be meeting your "born again" friends in heaven."
Mormon: I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I weekly renew my promise to take upon me the name of Jesus Christ. I pray in the name of Jesus Christ.
Translation: Because I am not Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mennonite, Unitarian, Easter and Christmas-ist, Evangelical, etc., I am not Christian.
OK, OK. I'll show some mercy here...
It just seems that all Mitt was admitting to was that Mormons are not Baptists, just like Methodists are not Presbytarians.
Regardless of what happens in these primaries, the next president will be very unique. We will either have the first black president, the first female president, the first Mormon president, the oldest president, or the first non-Mormon president. Huh?!
Yes, the first non-Mormon president. Mitt Romney is an able leader. He has the experience, expertise, ideology, and demeanor to be a great president. So do most of the other Republican candidates. Even Huckabee could be a decent president (although a little populist). And if Romney were anything but a Mormon, Huckabee would still be sitting in the back of the pack. There is no doubt and virtually no argument that the Huck's Iowa win came from the evangelicals. Evangelicals do not like Mormons. Evangelicals love their neighbors, and will go fishing with them and loan them their lawn mowers, and give them a cup of sugar, until they find out that the neighbor is a Mormon. Then the neighbor is going to Hell, no questions asked. Then the neighbor gets postcards from "the Mormon temple" "on behalf of Mitt" with half-truths and misreprentations about the Mormon doctrine. Then the neighbor's kids don't get picked for the backyard pick-up game. Then the highly qualified neighbor gets passed over for neighborhood association or PTA president for someone who speaks a little more "Christian". Then the highly qualified presidential candidate gets passed over for someone who is a little more... "not Mormon".
For most people, this sounds like sour grapes. I can concede that. But many of you "know what I am talking about." I worked with a good man. We talked about morals and values and family and our faith in Christ. He was impressed with my views, and naturally asked me where I attended church. I told him I was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. His face changed. "Oh." "Still think you'll see me in Heaven?" I asked.
"No," he replied.
"Is that because you won't be there?"
"Oh, I'll be there."
"I see. So I won't?"
"Nope."
"Even though I believe in Christ and have accepted Him as my savior?"
"Yep."
"Even though I have been baptized and try to keep His commandments?"
"Yep."
"No chance, huh?"
"Nope."
Romney still stands a good chance. He has been running a smart campaign. Unfortunately, some ignorance just can't be reasoned away.
McCain may do well. Huckabee will continue to suck votes away from Romney. Interestingly, Huckabee is not the only one benefiting from the Mormon thang. Many evangelicals and other Christians are voting for McCain simply because they are more comfortable with him than with a Mormon.
I found this well-written commentary on Mitt's "Religion Speech". I never saw the speech (I'll be looking for it on-line), but from various comments, it sounded like a winner.
I like the Huckster. But I learned a long time ago that the guy who goes out of his way to tell you he is a Christian is someone from whom you should flee, especially if he wants your business. Conversely, I have known some wonderful people who I knew were Christian, and with whom I would gladly do business again. Walk the walk, and that walk will talk for you.
I want to thank The Educated Shoprat for bringing this to my attention. I was actually not aware that this was even being produced. I would like to thank Michael Medved for his very insightful and respectful treatment of the Mormon faith and reaction (or non-reaction) to this very inflammatory depiction of an admittedly tragic error in the history of the LDS Church.
It is unfortunate that people can hold on to a grudge that, actually, has very little, if any, effect on their present lives. Living in Arkansas, I have spoken to relatives, as distant as they may be, of the murdered wagon train. I understand that they may never gain a respect for the religion. But to continue to be so angry about it is, in my opinion, nothing more than a justification for repudiating the Mormon faith.
My predecessors suffered extreme depravities, endured pain and hardship, including the deaths of sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, at the hands of murderous mobs. While those people had every right to be angry, I do not. I have suffered humiliation, degredation of reputation, "corrections" to my core beliefs, banishment from Heaven, banishment from social acceptance, among other consequences because I have elected to remain in the faith.
I think I am a good guy. I get along with most people. If you were to ask people who know me, or know of me, they would probably tell you that I'm pretty decent. Amazingly, some of those people will immediately disavow me the moment they discover my Mormonistic inclinations. But as Mr. Medved pointed out, I have no intention of recruiting some 12 year old Deacon to strap bombs to himself to vindicate this affront to my faith.
I found this tidbit of news a little interesting. I must admit that I have always been a little biased of Romney. As a Mormon, I would naturally like to see a fellow member living in the White House. I remember as a child, I thought Ronald Reagan must have been a Mormon. I haven't completely decided to endorse Romney... yet. I have been focusing more on my school work and less on the candidates. But in the little time I have devoted to the race, I have yet to find anything substantive that Republicans have found against Romney. I think he is doing a fine job overcoming the religion barrier. With that hurdle mostly gone, at least for the rest of the primaries, we can see more of his views and ideas about government. I must say, that so far I am impressed. I have no qualms with his explanation concerning his stance on abortion. While the timing appears a little suspect, he seems rather sincere about it.
What I really like about him is his success as a business leader and governor. His mannerisms are also such that I think he can rally people around him. He appears to have that charisma that draws people in. We need that right now. I think that of all the legitimate candidates out there right now, Romney would be the least divisive. In fact, I would go so far as to to predict that should he gain the White House, we might just have another Ronald Reagan.
I'm just sayin'...
I'd like to shake the hand of whoever designed the Chevy Astrovan... and then plant a good, firm foot in his backside. Don't let the "hood" fool ya. It's just there to laugh at the poor fool who has to try to fix the danged thing. It says, "Look, I'm a hood. You can't get to anything under here, but at least you can lift me up whenever it's time to work on me. People will look at you and think you are really doing something." Yeah, thanks for nuttin'.
No, to work on the van, you have to take off the INTERIOR HOOD.
OK, you think, where are the latches? Oh, but that would be too easy. No, you first have to remove the bolts.
OK, you think, I'll just remove the bolts. Still shouldn't be a problem.
Oh, but first you have to remove the console.
Oooooookay. Well, shouldn't be too hard. Let's see... a bolt here, a bolt there, and another one right about... here. Oh, and one more here. And one here. And... one more... here. OK. Now, pull it off. Uh, yeah, OK let's see... lift here, and tug here, and pull it out and up. No, up and out. And then up again. And now twist and lift. Whew!
Alrighty then. Now pull on the engine cover. Nothing. OK, ah, there's a bolt. And the other one... there. And then one there. And there. Oh, and there. OK. 3/8 for this one, 1/2 on this one, and let's see... 7/16? No, 5/8. Oh, you gotta be kidding me. Just how am I supposed to reach that one? I can barely see the danged thing.
Well, it's gotta come out. Hhhhhmmmkmkmkmhhhhhhh. Hukhmmmmmmmkmkmmkmmkmmkmkmkm. Dang it, dang it, dang it, dang it, dang it.
Hakhmhkmkhkmkhkmhumkhkmmhuummmkmkkmkkmkkhhkmkhmkkhhkmkhkm.
Whew! OK, now pull. Let's see, no, lift? No. Lift/pull? No. Pull/lift? Hey, it moved. Cool. Wiggle, wiggle. Lift, then pull, then tug, then lift again. I can see the engine now. A little more... now up and over the chai-... over the chai-.. OVER THE CHAI-.
You've gotta be freakin' kidding me! There is no getting this thing over these chairs. You can't twist it, turn it, bend it, lift it, warp it, break it, fold it, beg it, kick it, kick it, kick it, kick it... oh, hehe, sorry. Yeah, that's right. It is not going over the danged front chairs! Fine, I'll work around it.
Let's see now... spark plugs. Ah, there's the wires, let's see, they go down, down, down...
Oh, you have got to be freakin' kidding me! The spark plugs are below the floor board?! But they are also sitting over the stinkin' axle! There is no freakin' room to get your freakin' hand down to the freakin' spark plug! I'll have to get under the danged van, which means - oh, you have got to be freakin' kidding me. Where the @#%#^* is that *#@^# engineer. I've got one angry foot for his -
Oh, hi, dear... Yeah, it's going good. I'll have it fixed for you in no time...
Okay, I was just Googling thru some articles about Romney, and read thru the comments posted on one of the articles. As I was reading, I found a number of people complaining about some of the Mormons they knew, while others were griping about some obscure, misrepresented point of doctrine. Because of these tangential contacts with the Church, there was no way they would ever like the Church. And once decided, then there is nothing good about the Church. And then it is nothing to believe whatever oddball accusations come up regarding it.
Now read that post again, and see what you think. (If you've ever made green bean casserole according to the recipe on the can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup, it will make even more sense.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Many people of faith wear symbols of their faith. Hindu women may wear a red dot on thier forehead, while nuns wear the habit. Catholic priests, and other pastors wear a white collar. Other Christians wear a cross, usually on a necklace. Muslims wear certain wraps and headgear. What is the purpose of these unique clothes? Some wear them to make others aware of their faith, while most wear them to remind themselves of certain commitments they have made either to God or to their faith, or to certain principles of their faith or value system. For those who wear these symbols as a reminder to one's self of his or her commitments to follow God, or of his or her relationship to God, would it make a difference whether it is worn for others to see?
I bring this up because it appears that Mitt Romney is gaining momentum as a viable candidate for the presidency. It is inevitable that the issue of the garment would come up, as it already has for him. As he becomes more and more well known, questions about his faith will become newsworthy, and many of us may be confronted with the question about our "funny underwear." I have had a tendancy to shun the issue, as it is really nobody's business what I am wearing under my clothes, but my sweet wife reminded me that it is nothing to be defensive about, and presented the above explanation, which I found to be an amazing reminder as to why I wear the garment.
