Categories
culture politics

Freedom OF Religion

By now everybody in Utah at least has heard about the speech given by Elder Dallin H. Oaks at the BYU-Idaho devotional yesterday on the subject of freedom of religion. It will surprise nobody who knows anything about me to hear that I agree 100% with everything he said.

Considering that I could not hope to add insights beyond those of Elder Oaks some might question why I would bother to write anything about his speech. There are two reasons – first, this subject of our freedom of religion (for any atheists I could comfortably call it “freedom of conscience”) is important to every American who cares about preserving a viable nation where we enjoy any amount of liberty whatsoever and thus I could not pass up the chance to promote that message; and second, when I saw that some of what he said was being misunderstood (as shown in a poll where 2 in 3 respondents disagreed with his  assertion that the retaliation and intimidation against supporters of Prop. 8 was similar in nature to the voter-intimidation of blacks in the South) I knew that it was necessary for people who understood what he said to stand up and declare their understanding.

I would like to address those two reasons for writing in reverse order, first to address the apparent misunderstanding and then to talk about how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society.

The poll cited above asks if respondents agree with Elder Oaks that “the anti-Mormon backlash after California voters overturned gay marriage last fall is similar to the intimidation of Southern blacks during the civil rights movement.” With only that question to go on it is understandable that people would think to disagree. The blacks during the civil rights movement faced intimidation tactics for a much longer period of time and from more than just lay people, but from official quarters as well. The problem with the question is that it misrepresents what Elder Oaks actually said. Here are his words:

Along with many others, we were disappointed with what we experienced in the aftermath of California’s adoption of Proposition 8, including vandalism of church facilities and harassment of church members by firings and boycotts of member businesses and by retaliation against donors. Mormons were the targets of most of this, but it also hit other churches in the pro-8 coalition and other persons who could be identified as supporters. . .

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation. (emphasis added)

Vandalism, harassment, firings, boycotts of member businesses, and retaliation against participants were all forms of intimidation faced by both blacks in the South and supporters of Proposition 8, yet that is not how he was trying to compare the two situations. Let me repeat his comparison with special emphasis:

. . . these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South . . .

If you don’t believe that this is how he meant his statement hear the explanation that Elder Oaks himself gave (h/t Matt Piccolo):

Now for the question of how we must treat the freedom of religion in order to preserve a free society. Elder Oaks quoted Richard John Neuhaus who said, “In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being ‘religious’ than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb.” If we hope to preserve a free and robust society we must insist that we and those who disagree with us tolerate any expression of opinions whether it be religious, atheistic, psychoanalytic, Marxist, just plain dumb, or any other description. That starts with us before we can reasonably demand it of those who disagree with us. As Elder Oaks said:

“At no time did anyone question or jeopardize the civil right of Proposition 8 opponents to vote or speak their views.”

Once again Elder Oaks has addressed this issue better than I could so I will summarize his conclusion.

  1. We must speak with love, always showing patience, understanding and compassion toward our adversaries. . . Even as we seek to speak with love, we must not be surprised when our positions are ridiculed and we are persecuted and reviled.
  2. We must not be deterred or coerced into silence by the kinds of intimidation I have described. We must insist on our constitutional right and duty to exercise our religion, to vote our consciences on public issues and to participate in elections and debates in the public square and the halls of justice. . . when churches and their members or any other group act or speak out on public issues, win or lose, they have a right to expect freedom from retaliation.
  3. We must insist on our freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith. I will add here that the freedom to preach the doctrines of our faith does not translate into a freedom or right to compel others to participate in that faith. This is true whether the issue is a specifically religious participation or a more secular participation. In other words, it is wrong to punish someone for choosing not to participate in a public religious observance (a prayer in a public setting for example) just as it is wrong to prevent someone from choosing to engage in a religious activity in a public setting.
  4. The call of conscience — whether religious or otherwise — requires no secular justification. At the same time, religious persons will often be most persuasive in political discourse by framing arguments and positions in ways that are respectful of those who do not share their religious beliefs and that contribute to the reasoned discussion and compromise that is essential in a pluralistic society.
  5. Latter-day Saints (or anyone else) must be careful never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office. . . Such advocacy suggests that if religionists prevail in electing their preferred candidate this will lead to the use of government power in support of their religious beliefs and practices. In case that was unclear to anyone let me emphasize his point which was that the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for a public office should never be acted upon or even supported.

(italic comments mine)

Cross-posted at Pursuit of Liberty

Categories
culture thoughts

What Does It Mean to Forgive?

When Elizabeth Smart testified last week there was a renewed flurry of media coverage of that infamous case. While the contents of her testimony were shocking (as expected) there was nothing in her testimony that actually surprised me. I remember a couple of weeks after she disappeared when I thought that I hoped she was dead because if she was still alive at that point the nature of her ordeal was all too easy to guess. I’ll just have to say that all the evidence I have seen since her return (including the way she has stayed largely out of the spotlight) has proven that fleeting wish to be completely misguided.

As I saw the coverage of her testimony a scripture crossed my mind and got me thinking.

I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. (D&C 64:10)

This includes Miss Smart despite her horrific ideal. I don’t mean to imply that I can or should judge whether she has or will forgive Mitchell – her ordeal just happened to be the subject at hand when I had the thought. The reason that I bring it up is that her situation, including her giving testimony, specifically apply to my thoughts on the nature of forgiveness.

First, the Lord is not required to forgive Mitchell – that’s between the two of them and Elizabeth has no say in the matter – that’s the crux of my realization. Second, no matter how heinous his crimes against her the Lord expects her to pursue that path of forgiveness with regards to her captor. So again the question – what does it mean to forgive – especially in a case such as this?

I believe that what Miss Smart has done since returning to her family in 2003 is perfectly compatible with the proper forgiveness that the Lord expects of her. She has helped to write a book on survival for abductees, she has testified very forcefully against her abductor, but perhaps more importantly she gives no evidence of defining her life by that experience. Of course I have never met or talked to her – I give this strictly as an unconnected observer – but considering her apparent poise and maturity I believe she must have personally forgiven the man she testified against even as she seeks to ensure that justice is done. I don’t believe that she could move on with her life so successfully as she appears to have done if she were dwelling on the crimes committed against her. Dwelling on that past would be a hallmark of non-forgiveness. Doing everything she can to protect herself and others from the person who committed a crime against her is not at all incompatible with the path of forgiveness. In fact, holding Mitchell accountable for what he did is the kindest thing she could do for him. If he ever wants to repent of his actions he will have to take responsibility for what he has done – that’s a necessary component to repentance.

As Elizabeth appears to have forgiven and set herself firmly on the path of healing, I think the saddest part of this whole case is that the chances of justice being served are so low. I would guess that Wanda Barzee – who is as much victim as criminal – is more likely to be found competent to stand trial than Brian David Mitchell – who is all criminal in this case (meaning he is absolutely culpable) but who is intelligent enough and disciplined enough to live off of taxpayers while successfully avoiding real consequences for his criminal behavior by successfully playing the part of being insane. Even if he were somehow to be found competent he would spend the rest of his life with society paying for his crimes while he lives a life that is no more meaningless and irresponsible than the one he was living while perpetrating this crime.

Categories
Uncategorized

OpEd on Iran for America’s Next Great Pundit contest

Nobody (except  Ahmadinejad or Khamenei) is very thrilled about the possibility of Iran as a nuclear power.  That is one of the few foreign policy positions on which Americans of all political persuasions can agree. Like every other policy position (foreign or domestic) the agreement ends very quickly. Many on the right are convinced that saber rattling should be our first course of action (Bush was doing that long before the revelation of this new nuclear facility) and that threats of sanctions should be no more than a formality before we start planning for war. The majority on the left seem content to exercise the options of public condemnation, international sanctions, and diplomatic pressure with endless patience for anything short of a physical attack against our nation.

What neither side seems willing to discuss is what history tells us about the value of military intervention, when it is and isn’t desirable, and the appropriate interaction between military power and diplomacy. Although we should be supportive of having a robust military let us review why the approach by the left is closer to correct on this issue.

Anyone with a healthy respect for the ugliness of war would hope that all the saber rattling would very rarely escalate to military action. Unfortunately the more we use the tactic of threatening a military response to the actions of other nations the greater the probability that those nations will choose to test our resolve leaving us with two possibilities. First, we can decide that military action is unwarranted which soon makes us look like the boy who cried wolf and our rhetoric becomes useless until we have backed up our bluster a few times by engaging in military action. Second, we can put our money where our mouth is and send in the military. If we use our military too often we will make enemies out of otherwise neutral countries and even our allies will become wary of us.

The proper course is to be very careful about when we make threats of military intervention – never rattling the saber unless we are willing to draw the sword. We must also be careful not to waste our strength in fighting so many distant threats that we leave ourselves unprepared if we should ever face a truly imminent threat.

Iran is a distant threat at best and we should take our hand off our sword hilt.

Categories
life politics technology

Meet the Other David Miller – Torontoist

Let us tell you a few things about David Miller.

He’s wary of socialized healthcare. He’s in favour of weakening the federal government, and he also supports strict caps on income tax for individuals and corporations. Yeah, turns out David Miller’s a really conservative guy. How’d he ever get elected mayor of a city with such a strong lefty contingent? Oh, right. He didn’t.

Actually, he doesn’t even live in Canada.

David Miller of Bountiful, Utah, a conservative blogger (his site is actually a pretty good read), has politics very different from those of our own soon-to-depart Mayor Miller. But the two men do have one thing in common, aside from a name: they’re both active on Twitter, where Mayor Miller uses the handle @mayormiller, and David-from-Utah goes by @davidmiller.

This was how I was publicly introduced to the people of Toronto by the Torontoist. They picked up on the fact that I was being incorrectly linked in messages to/about the mayor of Toronto and thought it was funny enough that they asked me if they could do a story about it. It was a fun read – and I got a few random tweets out of it today – thought I’d share it here.

Categories
life

Potato Bar Casserole

When Laura invited me to cook dinner tonight I decided that I was in the mood to make something new. I also knew that I wanted something based on our hash browns. I did a Google search for potato recipes and found myself on this page. (I include the link not because it is the recipe I used, but because it contained links to a number of other recipes I would be interested in exploring later.) Here’s the recipe I created:

  • 6 potatoes, cooked and grated or riced
  • 1 can chili
  • 1 cup sour cream
  • 1 cup shredded cheese

In a large bowl, combine potatoes, chili, sour ream, and cheese; spoon into a greased 9 X 13 pan. Sprinkle a light layer of cheese over the mixture and bake at 425° for 20 minutes, or until casserole is nicely browned.

Categories
life

Personal Challenges

We had a neighborhood party last Saturday and as we were driving home we got talking with the kids about one of our neighbors and his son who is autistic. As we explained some basics about autism we did so in the context of the fact that everybody has different challenges in life, that the challenges we face may change at different periods of our lives, and that autism is one of those challenges that some people have to deal with.

This got the kids talking about their individual challenges and then they started asking Laura and I what our challenges were right now. When they asked me what my life challenge was right now I told them that my challenge right now is that my life is not always perfect, that sometimes things do not go as smoothly as I might wish.

As I thought about it, that’s a pretty good challenge to have (and I’m sure it can’t last forever). Everything in my life is going pretty well right now. It’s not that I’m in total control and the world bends to my will, but when things do not go as planned there are no devastating consequences. I do not get distraught when something I want remains out of reach because nothing that I need has been denied me, and nothing that I want right now is time sensitive so I can afford to wait when necessary.

Categories
life technology

WordPress, the OpenID Plugin, and Blogger Comments

I’m a fan of the idea of OpenID which is why I use the OpenID plugin accept OpenID authentication for comments on this site and others that I run. I am under no illusions that it serves as an anti-spam measure which is why OpenID authenticated comments undergo all the same spam filtering that any other comment receives. One of the reasons that I use the OpenID plugin is that it allows me to use my blog as an OpenID identity server so I can use my own domain to authenticate me on other sites that accept OpenID – including (especially) Blogger. When I leave comments I  like to be able to leave general comments that are authenticated by this site and have political comments authenticated by my political blog, Pursuit of Liberty (so that the comments point back to the most applicable site for the content of the comment). That worked for quite a while, but a few weeks ago I began getting an error when trying to use my OpenID’s on Blogger blogs.

I did a lot of searching but got no answers for the bug (I would leave the bug here so that others can find it, but Google changed the error code in that time to read “Your OpenID could not be verified”). Eventually I figured out that it was only happening when trying to leave comments authenticated through Pursuit of Liberty, but since the setup there is identical to the setup here that was not very helpful. Finally today I figured out the solution – I was authenticating through www.davidjmiller.org and pursuit-of-liberty.com – both are set up as www.{domain-name} and Google apparently decided to get strict on their authentication. When I leave comments from www.pursuit-of-liberty.com it worked fine. If anyone else finds this problem with Blogger and the OpenID plugin just remember to authenticate with or without the “www.” depending on how your site is set up (in other words make it match exactly).

Categories
life

The Difference Between Explanation and Debate

I learned some very interesting things as a result of Michael Jackson’s death. I know, most people would look at me and say “David, you seem like the type of person who would not even be paying attention to that kind of news.” They would be right, but one article caught my attention. It really wasn’t about Michael Jackson’s death – it was really about Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s) and it was written because Michel Jackson was raised in an JW household so his death brought up the subject of what they believe.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) are familiar with being viewed as being outside the mainstream of Christianity – that’s one thing they share with JW’s. For this (and probably many other) LDS the JW’s seemed even more outside the mainstream of Christianity than we are. (They may well view us as being more on the outside than they are.) I’ve had interactions with JW’s at various times in my life and each time they seemed to be arguing their position and trying to put my beliefs down – the result was that I came away feeling that their beliefs were odd and inconsistent or full of logical holes. I was left wondering how anyone could accept such an obviously flawed belief system. Years ago I even took the time to read some of their official church publications. These were better than the debates (sometimes one-sided debates) that I had been subjected to, but their beliefs still seemed partially incoherent.

This article was written by someone who was raised in a JW jousehold, like Michael Jackson, who never did choose to become a JW. He understands their theology from an insider perspective but he is not trying to proselyte or convince, only explain. This time, although I believe differently than the JW’s on many issues their theology finally seemed coherent – I could understand how it would not feel weird to those who believed its teachings.

The result was that my respect for the JW’s has grown and I have a newfound appreciation of the power that accompanies someone telling about and explaining their beliefs from a personal perspective as opposed to official institutional explanations or individual argumentation. This is further proof of why the Savior said that “he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention.”

Categories
life technology

HAM – KF7DQE

For the last couple of decades I have wanted to get a HAM radio license. I never got really serious about it, but it was always there in the back of my head waiting for “someday.”

Someday finally arrived. The stars aligned a couple of weeks ago and I decided to just go out and do it soon. I discovered that there was a test scheduled monthly in Salt Lake and I decided to study and take the exam during one of the tests this summer. I started studying from a library book – Now Your Talking – on Monday. I already knew that much of the knowledge was common sense rules about being considerate and so yesterday when I looked to see what dates the test was to be administered I discovered that the first one was that evening. Having taken some practice exams and seeing that I almost always got passing scores with the little study I had done, I decided to take the leap and take my test yesterday rather than agonizing over the material for another month. I took the test at 7:00 last night and passed on the first try (you can have three tries in one sitting). They encouraged me to take the test for the General class and I got closer to passing that than I would have expected.

Today my callsign got assigned and published in the FCC database so I am now KF7DQE – a HAM without a radio. (Of course I’ll be on the lookout for an appropriate rig.)

Categories
life

Protected: Family Reunion Questions

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: