Let It Be

The Practicalist has been on extended hiatus from political commentary. However, I am compelled to add my couple of pennies worth, as war has progressed in the Gaza strip, and the world has decided to add Israel to the list of countries that have no right to defend themselves. Currently, that list, in its entirety, is, as follows, to wit:

1. The United States of America
2. Israel

Welcome, Israel.

Now, the Uniched Nations is getting involved. The human rights (and unearned privileges) council, comprised of Arab and African nations, whose human rights records give them a mandate like no other council before them, are calling for investigations of Israel's wartime activities. Other human rights (and unearned privileges) groups, are also condemning Israel for standing up for its citizens. Of course, wink wink, "without diminishing the responsibility of Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups for indiscriminate and deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians."

Well, let's see, doing the research, I have found calls by the UN human rights (and unearned privileges) council for investigation into Hamas and Palestine's actions a total of... let's see... carry the 1... um... aha... zero times.

So, just to be sure I understand the logic here:

Israel conquered the Gaza strip during a war in which it was attacked by multiple neighbors. After being sold out by its staunchest weak-kneed allies, it agreed to provide the strip to Palestinians, should they be capable of governing themselves. As soon as they were given land, those Palestinians turned right around and started bombing and killing Israeli towns, villages, and civilians. Israel sent messages to citizens of certain towns in Gaza telling them that they would soon be bombed, and to please try to not be there when the missiles arrive. Meanwhile, Hamas continues to indiscriminately bomb Israeli civilian locations. Israel puts up with it for a while, knowing that any response would draw severe criticism from "civilized" nations. After so long, and so many deaths of its own civilians, it responds with very targeted, and telegraphed, attacks. And for its decision to lop off the head of the dragon attacking it, rather than merely chinking it with rocks, it is severely condemned by "civilized" nations who can't even avoid terrorizing their own civilians.

Well, I say, go Israel. Do what you've got to do. The rest of the pansies be damned. I don't recall seeing daily tracking numbers of Israelis killed during the last several months of random killings by Hamas. If folks didn't like you before, there's really nothing you can do that would change that. Look out for your own people.

Merry Christmas

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:

Trees, Treats, Tinsel and Trim

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.