Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays

Americans love war analogies.  It probably stems from our love of actual war, which I think is an actual collective sin we are committing.  So analogies between war and other non-war things are pretty unsettling and off-putting for me.  In the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, there are over 100,000 dead civilians, tens of thousands of dead combat troops, and millions of wounded.  So when we use frequent war allusions in sports and politics and the like I think we're being rather callous and glib.  If we paid more attention to our language and how we use it we might end up making different and better political choices in America.

That was all a slight tangent I started pondering as I considered this most special time of year when we can come together and debate whether or not there is a War on Christmas.  The weapons in this war are not missiles, bombs, drone attacks, and machine guns, but phrases like "Happy Holidays," the removal of nativity scenes from government-owned public places, and "X-mas."  The casualties are not human lives lost or permanent physical or psychological injuries and disfigurement, but . . . what?  I'm not sure.  Hurt pride, I guess.

What we have are some very conservative Christians who object to the de-Christianizing of Christmas.  Which makes some intuitive sense, I guess.  After all, this is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.  Put aside for a moment that the holiday was started in part as a way to co-opt pre-Christian winter festivals, and that even before the supposed "War on Christmas" was launched by supposed atheists and statists we Christians did a pretty great job mucking it up on our own with our Santa Clauses and elves and red-nosed reindeers and general commercialism that has wrung any meaningful Christ-centered moisture from the public face of the Christmas cloth.  Put that aside and I can at least see a glimmer of what these staunchly pro-Christ-in-Christmas conservative Christians are getting at.

But as I've alluded to a couple of times so far I think this is a matter of public v. private observance, and I think the Defenders in the War on Christmas are on the wrong side of this one.  We live in a country that is multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, multi-everything.  We Americans aspire to the ideal of tolerance and civility.  We have created this pretty rare country where ethnic and religious tensions have been historically pretty low key.  Only we're moving away from that recently.  There is a very vocal contingent of Americans that are creating tension with Hispanics.  The Christian right is continuing to gain power to push its anti-differences agenda and have swept Mormons into their net.  Muslims are have seen a steady deterioration in their public standing culminating in the embarrassingly bigoted "Ground Zero Mosque" fiasco.  And the list could continue.

The backdrop of all this, of course, is that we live in an increasingly heterogeneous society, so there is more and more bumping into each other causing the inevitable building of friction.  Whereas before you could walk down the streets of most small- to mid-sized towns in America and feel pretty certain that you were only going to pass by other white Protestants, now you're bound to encounter more diversity.  Whereas before any small- to mid-sized town in America could safely put up a nativity scene on the grounds of county courthouse because everyone that would see it was Christian and no one would care or complain, now you've got many more people of different faiths and backgrounds that might not share those Christian sensitivities.

The Constitution reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  There are two different things there.  The second part, known as the Free Exercise Clause, is not really at issue here.  Having public displays of Christianity on government property doesn't prohibit anyone from exercising their own religion differently.  It is that first part, known as the Establishment Clause, is a little more tricky.  Does having a nativity, something overtly Christian, on government property constitute an establishment of Christianity as the de facto government-sanctioned official religion?  Would we allow overtly Muslim scenes during Ramadan?  Jewish scenes for Passover?  Hindu, Sikh, atheist, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Scientologist, etc. scenes at other times?  Should the government be in the business of doing anything overtly religious at all?

These are difficult legal issues that are being sorted out constantly in the courts.  But if we remove for a moment the legal issues and just focus on the human side, I think the ideas get more clear.  Christmas is a great time of year.  More volunteerism occurs, more charitable donations, more goodwill.  For Christians there is (hopefully) more of a focus on Christ, which is excellent, but for people of all faiths Christmas is becoming a time to focus on family and giving and, yes, presents and decorations and everything else.  Why would we choose to be less inclusive?  Why would we try to force only the extreme Christian view on others instead of something many more people can embrace?  What could we possibly gain by pressuring businesses and public entities to say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" or something that more people can identify with?

I just don't understand when people want to force their religion on others and into the public square.  This isn't missionary work and glorifying Christ and expressing our faith, those sorts of things are done in humility and personally and one-on-one, this is about xenophobia and pride.  I think it does absolutely no good to worry about some nebulous "war" on Christmas, but it does all the good in the world to celebrate Christmas privately as a religious holiday and publicly as an all-inclusively holiday.  So, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Holidays, whichever suits you best.

Glenn Beck v. The Mormon Ethic of Civility

Can you guess which is which?

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times?

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending money on embryonic stem cell research. . .  Eugenics.  In case you don't know what eugencis led to; the Final Solution.  A master race!  A perfect person. . .  the stuff we are facing is absolutely frightening.
 
During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying."

You self-centered, self-righteous, socialist, out-of-control, dangerous, man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We’re not on LSD anymore. You need to start making sense.

Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.

Speaking to a Muslim Congressman:  "I have been nervous about this interview with you because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies". . .  And I know you're not.  I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans feel that way.

So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible.

Mary Landrieu is "a high-class prostitute".

The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.

Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames.
 
A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people.

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution, and it was designed to eat the Constitution, to progress past the Constitution.

Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.”

[Hilliary Clinton] is the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?

Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.”

Person 1:  I don't hate women, they're very convenient to have around.
Person 2:  They just shouldn't be voting.
Person 1:  Of course not.

Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.

Cindy Sheehan "a pretty big prostitute" and a "tragedy pimp".

Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible.

I think she is a racist.  I think she decided things based on race.  I think she says that a Hispanic woman, with the experience of being a Hispanic woman, can make decisions that a white man can't make.  I can't imagine saying that.  That's like saying Hispanics can't make money decisions like them Jews.
 
Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public.

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. . .  If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop.

Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.

These vampires are not going to be satisfied by just sucking the blood of GM's top guy, the AIG executives or any other business or businessperson. Their thirst for power and control is unquenchable and there are only two ways for this to end: Either the economy becomes like the walking dead or you drive a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers.

Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to "love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]" (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.

The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be "What the hell do you mean we're out of missiles?"
 
The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.


I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. . .  No, I think I could.  I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out.  Is this wrong?

The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism.  Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. 

There are three reasons that an illegal immigrant "comes across the border in the middle of the night:  One, they're terrorists.  Two, they're escaping the law.  Or, three, they're hungry -- they can't make a living in their own dirtbag country."

Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.

Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative.

Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible.

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. . .  I'm not saying he doesn't like white peopel, I'm saying he has a problem.  This guy is, I believe, a racist.
 
Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting.

You got to have an enemy to fight.  And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power.  That was Hitler's plan.  His enemy: the Jew.  Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming.  Then you get the scientists -- eugenics.  You the scientists: global warming.  then you have to discredit the scientists who say, "That's not right."  And you must silence all dissenting voices.  That's what Hitler did.

The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing.

There are good Muslims and bad Muslims.  We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the  head.
 
In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”

When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, "Oh shut up."  I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining.

The Immigration List, Continued

An investigation into the now infamous immigration list has revealed that two state workers compiled the information illegally from state databases.  I wrote a little about it a few days ago here.  This entire episode has ratcheted up the level of intensity surrounding the immigration issue here in Utah and also nationwide.  Amidst all of this the Church's position is to approach immigration with a spirit of compassion, "careful reflection and civil discourse," and "the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

After skimming the Deseret News comment sections to some relevant articles and doing a little "web surfing" I'm finding that a lot of politically conservative members of the church aren't so thrilled with the vibe they are getting from the church on this issue.  They find themselves in a somewhat unfamiliar position of not being exactly on-board with a political issue into which the church has inserted itself.  The word you are looking for is: schadenfreude.

The go-to authority for most of these people is the Twelfth Article of Faith, which of course states that "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  This says it all for them, that the law says deport illegals so we have to support it.  Let's set aside for now that these same people have done anything but honor and sustain laws with which they disagree, such as health care reform, and would gladly accept the government failing to enforce that one.  We all have convenient little mental gymnastics we can perform to bend logic to fit our preconceived ideas.

Setting that argument aside, what many of these politically conservative outspoken members fail to remember, also from the scriptures, are stories such as these:

1 And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand.

2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him.

3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.

4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace.

5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

6 And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

7 But Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed him, and from Judaea 

11 ¶ And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself.

12 And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.

13 And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

14 And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

15 The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering?

16 And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

17 And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

It was illegal for Christ to do these things on the sabbath, and yet He did anyway.  So, what is more important, a Christlike compassion and willingness to serve and strengthen those in need, or obeying, honoring, and sustaining the letter of the law?  What is more important, Matthew 22:36-40 or the Twelfth Article of Faith?

I don't think we should simply ignore the 12th, but let's at least put it in perspective.  It doesn't trump the commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves.  These illegal immigrants are our neighbors, they are good people, and the fact that they are here illegally doesn't allow us to just blindly demand that the full weight of the law be executed.  Instead, it actually gives us a chance to exercise some charity and do something might be uncomfortable doing: forgiving and reaching out in compassion to illegal immigrants.

Religious Freedom and the Ground Zero Mosque

The Eleventh Article of Faith states: "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

I stated in my last post that my evolving three pillars of Things I Care About The Most In Politics are peace, a healthy sustainable environment, and moral/religious agency.  I think if we safeguard these three things we can live in a pretty great world for a long time.  Of course the three are intimately intertwined.  War is usually based on scarcity of resources (the environmental aspect) or religious conflict.  If we could focus on cleaning up our religious conflicts and our environment, sustainable peace would surely follow.

Unfortunately, there are many right here in America who want to restrict the religious freedom of anyone that worships different than they do, thus creating more conflict and less peace.  The latest and most public incarnation of this bigotry is the uproar over the plans to build a mosque and Muslim information center a few blocks from ground zero.

The opponents of this mosque truly believe that those who died on 9/11 would be dishonored by the mere fact that Muslims would have a place of worship so near ground zero.  The only way this thinking makes sense is if you believe that all Muslims are responsible for the actions of al Qaeda and the extremist factions that want to harm the United States.  This is, of course, absurd and bigoted.

Only a very tiny fraction of the around 1 billion Muslims in the world have radicalized and condone terrorism and violence against civilians.  Granted, that tiny fraction is doing some serious harm, but it is still no reason to condemn an entire religion.  What's more, Muslims in America are showing no signs of radicalization and some polls have shown that they are less likely than the American population at large to condone terrorism.

And lets not pretend that some of our actions in the Middle East played no part in creating extremism to begin with.  It does not justify terrorism, but it is relevant to understanding why such extremism exists.

If we were to hold every religion to the standard that those protesters are holding Islam, we would not allow any religion in our borders.  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Mormons all have extreme factions and skeletons in their closets, but we are willing to overlook those because we are a supposed "Judeo-Christian" nation.  Frankly, I'm more afraid of extremist Christian groups like the Christian Identity and other racist, nationalistic groups than anything else.

And if we allow the intolerant to dictate how, where, and what Muslims in this country worship, what is to stop them from coming after Mormons next?  They've got some pretty weird beliefs, don't they?  Then they can go after the Jehovah's Witnesses, then Buddhists, then Catholics.  Where do we draw the line?

Fundamentally, we have to let all religious people peaceably practice their religion, or practice no religion at all, if we want true religious freedom in this county and if we want to retain our moral agency.  That means coming to terms with Islam and extending a hand of fellowship.  It means truly respecting all peaceable religions and demonstrating true tolerance of differing religious beliefs.

If we let this sort of bigoted religious thinking to become mainstream in America we will all become less free.  We will be less free to practice any religion we want, less free to exercise our moral agency and strive to become more like Heavenly Father in the way we best see fit, and less free to hold points of view of any kind that are unpopular with the majority.

The Skalestial Kingdom: Liberalism, Mormonism, and Ska

In the 1990s ska was a thriving counter-culture movement in Utah, was the dominant sound of Utah County local music, and produced such bands as Swim Herschel Swim, Stretch Armstrong, and My Man Friday. There is a recently released documentary about the 90s Utah County ska scene called "The Up Beat" which is really worth taking a look at.

There are a lot of theories as to why ska became so popular among young Mormons, and I think they boil down to two things: message and tone. The message was one of unity, respect, anti-materialism, and self-confidence. The tone was upbeat, optimistic, and really just pure fun. Young Mormons could latch onto this attitude as perfectly compatible with their religion, while also providing a way to rebel against a culture that increasingly stressed individual wealth and conformity. Perhaps the single best introduction is from the legendary Bay Area ska band, The Uptones. Here they demonstrate not only the classic 2 Tone ska style, but the imminently imitable style of ska dancing, skanking:


It is silly, it is fun, it takes no coordination (in fact, coordination may actually be a hindrance), and it requires that you suspend all thoughts of self-doubt, self-consciousness, pride, ego, or cares about what people think about you. You are basically required to just trust that you can be yourself and no one will judge you.

Ska originated in Jamaica in the 1950s, migrated to England and incorporated faster beats and a punk-rock attitude in the 1970s (the 2 Tone sound), and then migrated to America in the 1980s where, in the 1990s, it fused even more with punk rock to create the Third Wave sound. Throughout its several iterations, however, the basic theme is a walking bass line with rhythms on the upbeat. And it total speaks to me.

One of the first themes that ska music is known for is racial unity. When it was growing up in England it was a time of racial discord. Most ska bands were, and still are, multi-racial and place an enormous amount of emphasis on unity in general, and racial unity in particular. The Specials:



Along with the idea of racial unity, there was this idea that inequalities of all types were tearing us apart. The haves and the have-nots have slowly separated over the years and this has bred discord that ska music has always sought to counter. The Slackers:



There is definitely a defiant undertone to most of ska. We live in a society where corporatism is more important than democracy and where our culture is based on a me-first attitude that has divided us instead of uniting us. The Toasters captured this attitude in a nostalgic song about listening to corporate-free pirate radio as a child. It is a song longing for a simpler life where corporations and materialism do not dictate our thoughts and appetites:



So what's the suggestion ska music makes? To respect one another and try to see things from other people's perspectives. What we no longer seem to be able to do is admit that different opinions are not necessary inferior to our own, they are just different. We don't have to tear others down to justify our stances. Mustard Plug:



The other suggestion is to be completely comfortable in your own skin. To stand up for what you believe and not be swayed by the opinions of others. This next song is from a band called the Suicide Machines (I know, it sounds awful, but this is a band whose lyrics ironically are full of optimism) who were probably more on the punk end of the punk-ska spectrum, but they use some of the old ska beats and I love what this song told me as an insecure kid (and weren't we all?):



In a world that is increasingly divisive and individualistic (in the sense of my needs are more important than yours), ska encouraged me to stress unity, tolerance, and respect. Where we are told by corporations to conform and turn over our free will and critical thinking, ska encouraged me to have self-confidence and be an individual. Where the world is increasingly materialistic and fatalistic, ska helped me to value things other than simply what I could buy and consume.

I don't have any inherent trust in the government, but I have acquired a hefty distrust of corporate America. So when I see, for instance, the health insurance industry dropping coverage, raising premiums at break-neck speed, denying coverage because of supposed pre-existing conditions, hassling its customers, and creating a completely broken system, I have no problem completely dismantling their way of doing things. I know they don't care about me, so why should I care about their profits?

This is where the ska attitude that comes out in me: lets lift up those that are beaten down by the system, lets worry more about creating a country where people have equal access to things like education, a good job, and health care than about what material things I can buy with slightly lower taxes. Let's pull together by actually pulling together, as opposed to relying on greed to pull us all up by accident.

Let me leave you with the ska take on a love song by the Southern California partially-Mormon ska band, the Aquabats (a couple of whom are creators of the awesome kids show Yo Gabba Gabba!). Remember, ska is first and foremost about optimism and having fun:

Advocacy and Partisanship

A lot of people don't like lawyers, me included (to get in on the joke, realize that I am a lawyer). A lot of people don't like lobbyists, me included. But I feel like they (or we) play an important role in democracy. This isn't a post about lawyers or lobbyists, though, it is a post about advocacy.

As lawyers we are taught to zealously represent the interests of our client. There is no requirement that we actually agree with our clients non-criminal or fraudulent position, we are to advocate for them regardless. This, on the surface, may seem to indicate an ethical compass with no true north. We are also programmed to give nothing unnecessarily to the opposition, instead making them earn every point in painstaking fashion. This, on the surface, may seem to indicate extreme obstinacy and an unwillingness to see the other side of the equation.

What all of this means to me, however, is that every person or business has the absolute right to full representation and that no charges or actions can be brought against them without the accuser having the onus of fully proving their case. This avoids situations where frivolous claims or charges are brought against a person, or where only people or entities with popular opinions have access to legitimate justice.

Politically I think we tend to fall into these same patterns. Most Americans prefer one political party to exclusion of the others. The intelligent ones on both sides don't agree with everything in the party's platform, but that party more or less represents their world view. So what happens, I think, is that in order to feel like an integral part of a group, and in order to justify their beliefs, people will defend their party to the fullest, criticize the other party to the fullest, and overlook the flaws in their own and the virtues in the other.

This is partisanship. And while we have stated many times that it is dangerous to blindly follow any party or ideology, I think partisanship is very, very good for democracy. It allows for full debate of the issues, it allows for minority point of view to be expressed and disseminated, it requires anyone who makes a charge or takes a public policy position to have to prove it to the public because the other side isn't going to just give it to you.

But what it also often requires is for the partisan to take a more extreme view than what she might be exactly comfortable with because democracy is also about negotiation and compromise. Which leads partisans having to take sides, sometimes, with extreme factions of their party in the hopes that the political compromise will be more to their liking, which is often the case. Do I agree with every position that the Sierra Club or Green Peace or the ACLU or gay rights groups take? Of course not. Do conservatives agree with every position that Limbaugh or Hannity or Coulter take? Of course not.

But we play along because if we start from a moderated position and the other side starts from a more extreme position we end up with a compromise skewed against us instead of comfortably in the middle.

The side effect of all of this, of course, is that emotions tend to take over where we intend only rational and reasonable debate. This, again, isn't necessarily a bad thing. We cannot, no matter how hard we try, free ourselves of our emotions. Nor should we, but we shouldn't allow them to take over. I think the best advocates are those that color their reasonable arguments with well-placed emotion.

So this blog will keep going forward with our liberal stances. We'll take positions that will shock some, cause others to roll their eyes, and cause some to throw their hands up in the air and give up. We can certain improve in some areas, like our tone (you may not realize this, but SO and I tend to have sarcastic personalities, which is fun for us, but annoying for others, especially because sarcasm is hard to convey in writing). In doing so it is never our intention to offend or belittle, nor to imply that opposing points of view are stupid or uneducated, nor to unfairly generalize based on group identification. We don't think all conservatives are dumb rednecks and we don't disillusion ourselves that all liberals are educated and tolerant.

We are proud Mormons and proud liberals, though, and we don't see a conflict, and we are going to keep advocating and explaining our positions. And no amount of uneducated conservative thought is going to change that.*

*Did that sarcasm come through? I can honestly never tell. If you could have seen me wink and smile after that last line, you'd have gotten it.