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.

I think it is appropriate to use so much music for such an important celebration because music communicates with people emotionally and intellectually in a very powerful way. In fact, it may be the generous use of music that helps to keeps our cultural celebration of Christmas so strong. While so many other holidays turn into nothing more than a day off of work or an excuse to hold retail sales Christmas has never yet been relegated to such a bleak fate. Despite any complaints by some about “Happy holidays” or “x-mas” the fact is that I have never found any holiday that carried more spiritual meaning that Christmas. Whatever of secularism might be carried by the figure of Santa Claus we still can hardly go anywhere without some display of the religious side of the season whether we are seeing Menorah’s or nativities or hearing references to Bethlehem and wise men.

An objective analysis would undoubtedly show that Christmas carries more religious significance in our secular society than any other holiday (with the possibility that Easter might rival it for religious/spiritual content). I really would not be surprised if music played a large part in keeping so much of that meaning intact.

A marathon provides a good example of both. Winning a marathon is a competition. The winning time of any one race has no bearing on the outcome of other races. Your time in one race may be too slow to win while the same time in another race would constitute first place. Finishing a marathon is a challenge – any marathon runner will congratulate any other on the accomplishment of running that 26.2 mile race. Finishing a marathon in under 3 hours is a challenge – no matter how many people accomplish the feat, my finishing in under three hours does not diminish your success in finishing in under three hours.

The distinction here might seem trivial, but I believe that we can find valuable benefits from being able to distinguish between a competition and a challenge. For some non-athletic examples: getting elected to a political office is a competition (assuming you are not unapposed) while getting into heaven is a challenge.

The way this is the case for telling the truth is that one side received all the benefit as both sides argued about related obscurities that were all false to one degree or another. Those opposing Prop. 8 claim that the measure was designed to institutionalize discrimination. They benefit from this because of the emotional reaction that good people have to the idea of discrimination. When the proponents of Prop. 8 focus their arguments on the secondary effects of legalizing gay marriage, using fear as their tool in place of truth the opponents can easily counter with the idea that the repurcussions of this action will not have a ripple effect citing the fact that gay marriage has already been legal for months (and naturally within those few months we would already be seeing the side effects of such a monumental social change as redefining the primary unit of society).

If the advocates for Prop. 8 would stick to publishing the truth of their position and defending themselves accurately against the false claims of discrimination their opponents would not be able to obscure the real issue as effectively as they have been able to do. The voters would be left to decide on the issue of whether marriage is a construct of man or something more eternal in nature. If the issue were decided based on the real argument then it would almost not matter the outcome of the vote – the people would be declaring where they stand on the issue and the debate would serve as an opportunity to teach the truth.

As it stands, the debate has circled around the central issue and been hijacked by half-truths and high emotions. The people of California will decide the issues based on viceral reactions rather than honest or clear belief. Many will make a choice that they honestly do not understand and cannot be fully held accountable for that choice which means the issue will undoubtedly be revisited without the benefit of so many people already understanding what it being decided.