Last week I received a new donor card from the Red Cross and a letter to go with it. The letter contained an interesting statistic that the Red Cross receives a large majority of their donations from only 30% of their donors. Just to be clear, the statistic is that 30% of those who donate – not 30% of the total population – provide much more than half of the blood supply. Specifically it is the 30% who donate repeatedly and of course the message of their letter is that they want me as part of that minority of donors.

Later in the week I was at the temple when the thought struck me that although I have no statistics on it, I think it highly likely that the great majority of temple work done is performed by a minority among those who go to the temple. I realized that this is a consistent pattern. Only a small minority of Boy Scouts perservere in their scouting and advance to the Eagle rank. A minority of families raise the majority of children in each succeeding generation. A minority of active voters participate in the primary process and earlier activities to get informed and select candidates for office. A minority of religious people actually attend services regularly and keep their respective churches operating.

As I thought about it I realized that the only minorities that matter are not those we are assigned to such as Hispanics, African Americans, blind people, or midgets, but the ones we decide to be part of like repeat blood donors or involved citizens.

Everyone, by their choices, is part of some minorities whether good or bad. For those who wish to make a difference the question is not merely “what good things do I want to do” but “what things can I do more or better than most of the people who are casually involved?” As we make those decisions we must recognize that we can’t do everything but we can choose where to do something.

As if to prove the point I made in my last post about passing out casts and crutches, the Seattle Post Intelligencer this week published an essay from Brad Soliday, a teacher in eastern Washington, where he shares his perspective about how the increasing money bring allocated to education is being misspent because it is focusing on a mistaken solution.

I doubt it is truly coincidental that while real education spending has risen 49% in the last two decades it is dysfunctional or broken families that have seen a corresponding rise in society rather than educational outcomes (which have flat-lined despite the ever rising funding). This should be irrefutable proof that those perpetually sounding the cry that education is underfunded are either misinformed or intentionally deceptive (I’m sure there are some who fall into each of those camps). Education is under-supported due to the disintegration of a solid family foundation in society but money cannot solve that problem.

Mr. Soliday puts into words a disturbing fact that many people would be unwilling to articulate:

Many educational reforms attempted in the last fifteen years are an attempt to recreate or substitute for the structure, attention, discipline, support, love and expectations of a healthy family.

I can’t imagine that there are more than a very few people who truly believe that such an attempt could ever be truly successful.

Perhaps my favorite part of the essay is the prescient statement at the end in which he summarizes:

For forty years educators and politicians have been trying to raise test performance and reduce dropout rates by “fixing” schools. These efforts have largely failed or returned meager improvements. They have failed because they are trying to fix the wrong institution. Schools are not the problem and schools are not the solution. The disintegration of the family is the problem and its restoration is the only solution (to several social issues besides educational achievement).

Schools and teachers can always improve, they can do better, and they can make the difference for tens of thousands of individual students, but they cannot make up for systemic dysfunction in the most important institution in America, the family.
(emphasis added)

Mr. Soliday ends by offering some conclusions about the true way forward in education. Among them he offers this, which sounds very much like something prophets and apostles have been telling the world for fifteen years already:

Curriculum, programs, and even laws should be developed to promote and protect the family, especially the role and responsibility of fatherhood.

Over the course of six years of writing online I have been asked why I focus so much on political issues and not so much on promoting a moral society. I think it’s a great question and I have thought much about it. The short answer is that my focus has been mainly on the political system and how it impacts society as well as how we can have a positive effect on the system that is currently in place.

For some time now I have found myself falling back in private political discussions to the position that all the best efforts and intentions with regard to political activity are no more than a bandaid over the ills of society and that true progress and stability in society are utterly dependent on the underlying morality or righteousness of the society being governed. It is exactly the same with a wound: a bandaid can help keep it clean and impede further infection but real healing is an internal function of the body. From outside the body the most we can do is create an environment that is conducive to healing.

What does that mean with regard to political involvement? A couple of things:

The most important thing it means is that we must recognize that no matter how pure or even effective our political efforts may be they cannot finally solve any of the problems we face. We must keep in the forefront of our minds the fact that actual solutions must begin and be rooted in the basic cells of society, our families. With that understanding we might be more careful in the laws that we support to make sure that we are supporting and enabling healthy families rather than passing out casts and crutches for the broken homes which we have in ever increasing abundance. (We should also recognize that “broken” homes include more than just the poor or single parent families that get so much public sympathy.)

The second thing that means is that we must recognize that even though we cannot force people to be righteous, or smart, or tolerant through legislation what we establish in law is a baseline of decency and goodness in society—in other words, what we legislate is what we can and should enforce as a society and the bare minimum of what we should adhere to as individuals. When we remove or alter existing legislation we should consider whether we are truly promoting liberty or whether we are aquiescing to the destructive forces operating on our society.

Third we need to recognize that the vast majority of those who wish to use legislation to do more for society than it can actually do, in other words those who would use legislation as a tool for social engineering, are good and honest in their intent even when they are misguided in their efforts. Those who recognize the natural limitations of political action must work to help them recognize those limitatons and also work to expose that small minority who are actually using the power of government under the guise of social justice who are not acting honestly but instead are seeking for their own power or for the destruction of that which supports a moral society.

In summary, political power can be used to define and enforce a social baseline for conduct and expectations but it cannot be used to make society good—even if we want it to—and those who seek to use political power for more than that generally do so out of ignorance or misunderstanding rather than out of malice.

More importantly for me: what does this mean for my political involvement?

It’s going to be a less prominent part of my life. I still see political participation as vastly important to letting my light shine. I plan to be an example of an informed citizen who takes his opportunities to participate in the political process seriously. I will always be there at the ballot box and will do everything possible to help my elected representatives at all levels to make enlightened political decisions in my behalf. That being said I feel the need to talk more about building an ideal society than about the specifically political aspects such as the legislative process, voter participation, and Constitutional government. All those things are important and I will not abandon my beliefs and positions with regard to those things. My focus is shifting but not my beliefs.

Along with that shift in focus I plan to consolidate my writing here on my personal site. Pursuit of Liberty will eventually go away but it’s content will be preserved as a subdomain here. I might go so far as to crosspost specifically political content on that subdomain but I make no promises to do so. my focus will be on building and documenting how we should build a strong and sustainable society with healthy families at the core and morality and faith in God as essential pillars along with good government to keep it stable. Mitt Romney spoke of strong defence, strong economy and strong

This is an expanded and slightly modified version of what I posted as Limitations of Politics at Pursuit of Liberty.

As part of this change I started using Stats Counter to have some idea of what is actually happening besides me writing and people commenting. Interestingly one of the first three searches that landed someone here at my site after I signed up for stats counter was a search for “sister beck conference talk.” I don’t know if my Canadian friend was looking for Sister Beck’s most recent conference talk or something else but they landed on a post I wrote in the aftermath of Sister Becks incredible talk “Mothers Who Know” from the October Conference of 2007.

As it had been so long since I wrote it I took the time to go read what I had written about the talk. When I read the post I was, quite frankly, disappointed that someone might see that as indicative of who I am. At the time I was so busy trying to keep my site from being overly religious in an attempt to foster an open political dialog that I said almost nothing of consequence and I completely failed to convey what an inspiring and inspired talk it was. That talk is a beacon to those wishing to establish a Zion rooted in a strong family culture and I managed to water down my reaction to the point that it sounded like little more than a breath of fresh air.

Since that time I broke my political writing off into another site and actually found that I was not comfortable maintaining the kind of political neutrality that lead me to give so little praise to such a wonderful talk. I have been pleased with the outcome of abandoning that neutrality in my political writings and now I am looking at refocusing on some spiritually significant topics here (some political others apolitical). I hope that others will never have any excuse to wonder at the depth of my feeling for the topics I address here like they might well have done when reading what I wrote in October of 2007.

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

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.

I was laying in my bed at 5:00 AM (when most people should be in bed) and my brain started reviewing the images of the roads I commute on. I began to think of how such a complex road system would be entirely unnecessary if we were not able to travel at the average speed of today’s normal commute. Consider this a stream of semi-consciousness about the impact that our speed of movement has on the kind of life that each of us lives.

Then

Let’s place the year 1889 as the baseline of a slower lifestyle. I choose that year because it predates the advent of the car, it is late enough that we had the ability to move faster than horse and wagon with the use of railroads, and it’s 120 years ago – a nice round number.

In 1889 most travel was done by horse or on foot. As I recall traveling 30 miles in a day was generally about as far as a person could expect to go. In the late 1870′s the Transcontinental Express was able to average about 35 miles per hour traveling across the country. That would appear to be the functional limit of traveling speed for that time.

Now

Today people regularly travel 70 miles per hour on their daily commute (outside of rush hour) only because we have created an artificial speed limit of 65 mph on our roads – without that speed limit most vehicles could easily travel at 90 mph.

For the sake of simplification let’s consider the differences that we would see if we were to limit our physical traveling of people to 5 mph (a fast walk) with a limit of 30 miles per day, as compared to today when I can comfortably make a trip of 600 miles in a long day and regularly commute 20 miles each way to work.

Comparison

In our modern situation the only real limitation on where I work (physically) is how much time I am willing to commute – I can choose to live 50 miles or more from my place of employment so long as I am willing to take the time to commute. In the slower lifestyle if we assume that I am willing and able to spend 6 hours of my day commuting in addition to the 8 hours I need to work then I could work as much as 15 miles from home.

From a community standpoint I could not reasonably interact with anyone outside a 7 mile radius on a reagular basis in the slower community whereas in the modern-speed community I could with no more effort interact with people anywhere in a 100 mile radius. If we had an even population density over that whole area that would mean that I have access to 204 times as many people on a daily basis. If we assume that there really is a limit on how many people I can know well then there I can really only know ½ of 1% of the available information about those I can interact with on a daily basis compared to the slower society

Conclusion

I am really not trying to suggest that our society has gone all downhill since some utopian point in our past, but I do like to think about the real results of what we think of as progress. As I was looking around (on the internet – there’s a new kind of speed there) I discovered an entry in WIkipedia on car culture that focuses on cars and addresses this same mindset of “what has really changed with this progress.”

What are your thoughts on the effect of rushing about in our society?

I have written before about our national propensity to use government when it is not the proper tool for the job. Scott summed my point up very succinctly in a recent post:

There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.

One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.

Government is not the only tool that we often use inappropriately, and sometimes the wrong tool is employed not because it is the tool of choice, but because we refuse to use the proper tool. Such is the often the case with regard to schools disciplining children.

A large number of schools use potentially dangerous methods to discipline children, particularly those with disabilities in special education classes, a report from Congress’ investigative arm finds.

In some cases, the Government Accountability Office report notes, children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time.

Some people would be quick to blame the authoritarian, impersonal schools for their outrageous methods of discipline and while I am far from a believer in the infallibility of schools I think that such blame is misplaced in the vast majority of cases.

The real blame lies in the fact that many parents fail to enforce discipline in their homes and even among those who do enforce discipline in their homes all too many make themselves unavailable to take on that responsibility when their children require more discipline than can reasonably be applied by a teacher in charge of more than a dozen students. What’s worse, is that we cannot even safely place the blame fully on the shoulders of the individual parents. Too many of them are forced into situations where they cannot devote themselves to parenting full-time. (Sometimes they just feel forced into those situations.)

As a society we have set too low a value on the role of parenting – placing it completely secondary to economic productivity. We have set expectations too high for our material and economic standard of living – where the luxuries of yesterday must necessarily be necessities today. Consider cell phones for every family member over the age of 10, cars for everyone over 16, cable TV, computers, game consoles, television sets in every room, dance-lessons, sports, and hobbies for each day of the week.

None of these things is intrinsically bad, but together they form unreasonable and unsustainable expectations and they destroy the possibility for most stable families to keep at least one parent available to take care of their children when needs arise.

Not only that, but we expect the schools to provide many of those hobbies through requiring gym, art, and music classes as well as extracurricular sports. The result is that even where there are parents at home and available the children often spend too many hours under the care of their teachers and not enough under the influence of their parents. This serves to lessen the parental influence and offers incentive for parents who would otherwise be available to commit themselves to other activities lest they feel they are wasting their time.

The problems are complex and interwoven so that any hope of identifying the solutions is dependent on our recognition of how and when any given tool can be used and insisting on using each tool in its proper place rather than finding favorite tools and trying to make this reduced tool set suitable for all our needs.

Cross Posted at Pursuit of Liberty

A perfect example of the village approach occurred last night. We went to see a performance of Annie being put on by Bountiful High. Soon after we arrived we ran into my cousins, JP and Marie Feinauer. The kids were well behaved for the first song, but then their ages began to catch up with them. Isaac started running up and down the aisle. He wasn’t very noisy, but with the light coming from the open doors at the back he cast a long (and distracting) shadow. Mariah was pretty good, except that she had to keep switching laps. Alyssa could not seem to stop herself from changing seats, bouncing, and talking (without her whisper voice). Savannah was perfectly behaved. Considering how late it was (late for young children) we decided that we needed to leave at intermission, but that was really not fair to Savannah who was enjoying the show and acting appropriately. This is where JP and Marie, members of our village, come into our story. At intermission I asked if the Feinauer’s would be willing to drive Savannah home at the end of the show. They agreed.

Because they were there, and were trusted by both us and Savannah, we were able to take the three home who were not acting appropriate to the setting while allowing Savannah to stay. Not only was this fair for all of the children, but being able to make that distinction showed in a very tangible way what behavior was appropriate at a public performance. I honestly expect that at the next public performance we attend Alyssa will act appropriately (and possibly even Mariah) because of the lesson from last night – made possible because of some help from our village.