Jacob S. has already elucidated the behavior of our beloved legislature Chris Buttars. I want to expand on a couple of his thoughts, and reply to the comments of several of our readers.
First, if you are not aware, Chris Buttars was removed from his positions of chairman and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and as the chairman of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee. According to Sen. Howard Stephenson (R-Draper), Buttars was not removed for the content of his comments on homosexuality, but rather for violating an agreement with the Senate to not to speak publicly on the issue. Apparently Buttars has been marked as a "lightning rod" on this issue.
In my mind, this leaves two questions open for debate. One, is the content of Buttars benign, or is the content itself the source of the reaction. Two, should Buttars comments "in private" be considered as speaking publicly (i.e. where does free speech leave us exactly).
There is no question that the LDS church considers homosexuality a sin. There is no question that all sin is considered by the LDS church to have a negative impact on society. However, Chris Buttars stated that "the greatest threat to America going down," and went as far as to compare homosexuals to "radical Muslims." It isn't enough that Buttars is ignorant and intolerant of Muslims, when he probably means Islamic radicals (the ideology that Islam is both a religion and a political system), but also that he normalizes the violent murders of these radicals with the behavior of homosexuals. Murder is worse than sexual deviance, as stated by President Kimball in 1978 (Spencer W. Kimball, A Letter to a Friend, pamphlet). Instead, homosexuality is in line with all other forms of sexual immorality including adultery, fornication, etc. Buttars is mistaken in equalizing homosexuals to murderers.
A second, decisively inflammatory comment from Buttars on the Common Ground initiative (SB 32) was, "It lost 4-2, and I killed it. I've killed every one they've brought for eight years." The bill is designed to give certain rights to homosexuals, among which are: expanding healthcare, fair housing and employment, wrongful death rights, etc. Notice that neither marriage, nor civil unions are listed among the changes sought by this, and similar bills. In addition, Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the church's Presidency of the Seventy stated that "...in general, the church "does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships," that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights. So where does the justification for Buttars delight in killing these bills come from? Certainly not from LDS doctrine.
Homosexuality is a moral issue, that is now being debated as a civil issue. From the LDS church's point of view it is a sin, but the sinner is still a child of God, and a member of society with all the rights to worshipping "how where and what they may" (Articles of Faith #11). Chris Buttars does not speak for the church, nor do his comments represent the teachings of the church. It is the very content of his comments that deserve explanation and consequence, as they are not in line with civil liberties.
The second question is in regard to Chris Buttars' right to free speech. We can not, and must not, interpret Freedom of Speech with the right to say or do anything we want. It is not absolute and there are (thankfully) limitations against things such as "hate speech," pornography, and the "offense principal." Obviously, the response to the various form or context of speech is individual and subjective, and therefore must be decided upon by the each respective society. Kissing in public for example is acceptable, while public sex (although it technically is protected under "free speech") is not condoned in the United States or any other society I am aware of. So, while Buttars does have the right to say whatever he wants, he must accept and be aware of the association and implication of his statements. Such responsibility is true of everybody in all situations, but is exceptionally true of a public figure in a society where "private" statements are rapidly disseminated. Buttars must take responsibility for his words, his actions, and his flawed ideology. If he is not self-sufficient or self-motivated to do so, then his constituency, the Republican Party, and the government must take action.
Selasa, 24 Februari 2009
Sabtu, 21 Februari 2009
The Chris Buttars Fiasco: A Total Lack of Leadership and Accountability From Utah Republicans
Things we have not heard from any Utah Republican legislators or elected officials:
Republicans have a stranglehold on Utah for now, but if these sorts of episodes continue, and if the Republican leadership completely fails as it has here, that domination will end sooner than they think.
- "We are embarrassed by Chris Buttars' comments. They do not reflect the views of the Utah Republican party."
- "I disagree with what Chris Buttars said. Utah deserves more respectful dialogue and constructive solutions to our problems."
- "The Utah Republican party and the state legislature understand that on a list of things threatening America, homosexuals rate somewhere around moles eating our carrots from underground."
- "Senator Buttars should resign for his insensitive comments that reflect poorly on the Republican party and the great state of Utah."
- "I realize that almost all Utahns disagree with Chris Buttars' comments and would prefer open dialogue that is civil and respectful. We can disagree without being hateful."
- "We should expect more from our state leaders. More civility, more sensitivity, more openmindedness."
- "We apologize for Senator Buttars comments."
- Chris Buttars "represents the views of many of his constituents and many of ours [in the state legislature]. We agree with many of the the things he said."
- Chris Buttars losing his chairmanships on judiciary committees "will be a freeing mechanism for Sen. Buttars to function, to more fully express his freedom of speech."
- Any that would like to see Chris Buttars apologize only dared express so anonymously.
- "I am not encouraging him [to apologize]."
- The more than 10,000 emails sent in from Human Rights organizations and those critical of Buttars are "form emails [that] don't mean anything."
- We don't want to infringe on Buttars' free speech rights.
- We don't want to have a chilling effect on free speech.
- "The debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open."
- "This isn't a company. We are elected officials. Sen. Buttars was elected by his constituency. We're not going to mandate he has some sensitivity training. He's responsible for what he says. He's been a politician in public service for a long time. He can defend himself."
Republicans have a stranglehold on Utah for now, but if these sorts of episodes continue, and if the Republican leadership completely fails as it has here, that domination will end sooner than they think.
Jumat, 20 Februari 2009
Fruits of the Spirit
First, Buttars lost his chairmanships in the Utah Senate over his most recent comments, though he won't be resigning and was defiant when asked about an apology: "They ain't gonna get one." It truly is fun to have him around.
Second, it will become clear soon enough that my pet issue is the environment. I feel pretty passionate about it and could not be more happy that we have an administration at both the national and state (Gov. Huntsman is a true surprise on several issues) level that seems to value conservation over extraction and exploitation. Instead of going too political, I thought I'd share something more personal. Last Sunday the priesthood quorum I was in studied the fruits of the Spirit, and focused on Galations 5:22-23:
Conservation is a fundamentally moral issue and protecting our ever-diminishing natural treasures should be an absolute moral priority. We talk about protecting our society from moral decay, and rightfully so, but protecting the few remaining places where we can regenerate spiritually by being so close to the Spirit and creation is equally important.
There is no reason why we cannot balance our needs as far as food and energy and shelter with our needs as far as peace and nature. We can begin to live within our means not only in how balance our budgets, but also in how much we balance our consumption of goods and energy. We most definitely can protect our wild, spiritual habitats and our comfortable way of life, but first we have to understand just how important both are, and how much they are intertwined.
Second, it will become clear soon enough that my pet issue is the environment. I feel pretty passionate about it and could not be more happy that we have an administration at both the national and state (Gov. Huntsman is a true surprise on several issues) level that seems to value conservation over extraction and exploitation. Instead of going too political, I thought I'd share something more personal. Last Sunday the priesthood quorum I was in studied the fruits of the Spirit, and focused on Galations 5:22-23:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.It occurs to me that feelings of peace and gentleness and goodness are near universal feelings when we leave the cities and towns and visit undeveloped wilderness. Some of the most spiritual and faith-promoting moments I have experienced have been outside in the mountains or deserts, away from development and sprawl. Getting away from the buildings and cars and pollution and noise offers a unique connection with our Creator rivaled only by the peace of the temple. To be so close to creation and to our own thoughts, and to be in near total peace and quiet, I think, allows a measure of the Spirit hard to receive almost anywhere else.
Conservation is a fundamentally moral issue and protecting our ever-diminishing natural treasures should be an absolute moral priority. We talk about protecting our society from moral decay, and rightfully so, but protecting the few remaining places where we can regenerate spiritually by being so close to the Spirit and creation is equally important.
There is no reason why we cannot balance our needs as far as food and energy and shelter with our needs as far as peace and nature. We can begin to live within our means not only in how balance our budgets, but also in how much we balance our consumption of goods and energy. We most definitely can protect our wild, spiritual habitats and our comfortable way of life, but first we have to understand just how important both are, and how much they are intertwined.
Kamis, 19 Februari 2009
Chris Buttars: Hater
Chris Buttars is a Republican state senator representing some wonderful people in West Jordan, South Jordan, and Herriman. He is, potentially, the worst person in Utah.
His most recent comments are embarrassing to Utah, hopefully to Republicans, and to Mormons. He was interviewed for a documentary film and had some nasty things to say about gays. He called them, "the greatest threat to America." He compares them to radical Muslim terrorists. He opined that "it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide." And many other things. Here is the clip on youtube.
Never mind that Sodom and Gomorrah was about a lot more than homosexuality (perhaps it would be helpful for Mr. Buttars to crack open the big book), this is just hate-mongering. Comparing gays to radical Muslims is insulting to our intelligence. I would hope that our elected leaders understand that threats such as actual terrorism, a crumbling economy, unaccounted for nuclear weapons and technology, and poor education are perhaps, perhaps, more serious than gay rights.
But why stop with gays? We believe that smokers and coffee drinkers are breaking the Word of Wisdom, why aren't those sinners singled out by Buttars? What about real threats to the family like adultery and pornography? Why isn't Buttars spending any of his time on these problems? Because Buttars has found a nice scapegoat that he feels are icky.
So Buttars, lets not worry about other parts of our moral code, such as love thine enemy, pray for them, turn not any away, the whole have no need for a physician, etc. Lets forget that our religious leaders plead with us to be tolerant and open-minded, to love the sinner but hate the sin and all that. All of those are apparently just inconvient side notes for some. It is easier to hate and be inflamatory and, what's this?, get a bunch of media attention. That can't be a motivation of his, can it?
But it's certainly not the first time Buttars has spewed his bigotry. Last year, during a debate over a bill, he slurred, "This baby is black…this is a dark, ugly thing." This comment caught on nationally with the NAACP demanding an apology for this blatantly racist slur. He kind of apologized and then got defensive and, once again, hateful. Chris Buttars continues his fight against the mythical War on Christmas, by supposedly anti-Christian heathens who want Christmas to be a time of unity and inclusion, even when its not Christmas season.
He has said and done many more offensive things that I won't document, but a simple Google search will bring them up.
Chris Buttars is the the face of the Utah Republican party. He gets the most press, he is the most outspoken, he says the things that the legislature wants to say but is too afraid to. He is also never disciplined or censured by the state senate for any of the racist, bigoted, offensive things he says.
Even after his long history of being shamed in the the local and national media for his offensive and hateful diatribes, he keeps getting elected. And this is the perfect example of the problem with Utah politics. For so many people, as long as there is an "R" next to the candidate's name, he or she is acceptable. Certainly there are other states similar to Utah on both the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum, Maryland comes to mind, but Utah has a unique factor: religion. There is the underlying presumption that Republicans=Mormons, that the party=the church, that precincts=wards. So when it comes time to pull the proverbial lever, the motivating urge goes beyond political to religious. This leads to a special kind of one-party domination of state politics that is particularly damaging and dangerous. Not only do you get more and more extreme politically without opposition, but you begin to think that divine intervention itself is on your side.
His most recent comments are embarrassing to Utah, hopefully to Republicans, and to Mormons. He was interviewed for a documentary film and had some nasty things to say about gays. He called them, "the greatest threat to America." He compares them to radical Muslim terrorists. He opined that "it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide." And many other things. Here is the clip on youtube.
Never mind that Sodom and Gomorrah was about a lot more than homosexuality (perhaps it would be helpful for Mr. Buttars to crack open the big book), this is just hate-mongering. Comparing gays to radical Muslims is insulting to our intelligence. I would hope that our elected leaders understand that threats such as actual terrorism, a crumbling economy, unaccounted for nuclear weapons and technology, and poor education are perhaps, perhaps, more serious than gay rights.
But why stop with gays? We believe that smokers and coffee drinkers are breaking the Word of Wisdom, why aren't those sinners singled out by Buttars? What about real threats to the family like adultery and pornography? Why isn't Buttars spending any of his time on these problems? Because Buttars has found a nice scapegoat that he feels are icky.
So Buttars, lets not worry about other parts of our moral code, such as love thine enemy, pray for them, turn not any away, the whole have no need for a physician, etc. Lets forget that our religious leaders plead with us to be tolerant and open-minded, to love the sinner but hate the sin and all that. All of those are apparently just inconvient side notes for some. It is easier to hate and be inflamatory and, what's this?, get a bunch of media attention. That can't be a motivation of his, can it?
But it's certainly not the first time Buttars has spewed his bigotry. Last year, during a debate over a bill, he slurred, "This baby is black…this is a dark, ugly thing." This comment caught on nationally with the NAACP demanding an apology for this blatantly racist slur. He kind of apologized and then got defensive and, once again, hateful. Chris Buttars continues his fight against the mythical War on Christmas, by supposedly anti-Christian heathens who want Christmas to be a time of unity and inclusion, even when its not Christmas season.
He has said and done many more offensive things that I won't document, but a simple Google search will bring them up.
Chris Buttars is the the face of the Utah Republican party. He gets the most press, he is the most outspoken, he says the things that the legislature wants to say but is too afraid to. He is also never disciplined or censured by the state senate for any of the racist, bigoted, offensive things he says.
Even after his long history of being shamed in the the local and national media for his offensive and hateful diatribes, he keeps getting elected. And this is the perfect example of the problem with Utah politics. For so many people, as long as there is an "R" next to the candidate's name, he or she is acceptable. Certainly there are other states similar to Utah on both the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum, Maryland comes to mind, but Utah has a unique factor: religion. There is the underlying presumption that Republicans=Mormons, that the party=the church, that precincts=wards. So when it comes time to pull the proverbial lever, the motivating urge goes beyond political to religious. This leads to a special kind of one-party domination of state politics that is particularly damaging and dangerous. Not only do you get more and more extreme politically without opposition, but you begin to think that divine intervention itself is on your side.
Selasa, 17 Februari 2009
America's Broken Health Care System
There are over 46 million uninsured Americans, representing about 16% of the population, more than in any other industrialized nation. Of those uninsured, 8.3 million are children, which is about one in ten children under 18. About 25% of people making under $25,000 are uninsured, as opposed to about eight percent of people making over $75,000. Minorities are much more likely to be uninsured than whites. Eighty percent of uninsured people are either working or come from a working family. The overall number of uninsured people is rising due mostly to a falling availability of employer-sponsored coverage.
The uninsured are less likely to obtain preventative care, more likely to receive poor treatment for chronic sickness, and more likely to put off needed medical care making the problem worse.
The reason employer-sponsored coverage is eroding is because insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Since 1999, employment-based premiums have risen 120%, compared to 44% inflation and 29% wage growth. The United States spends about 17% of its GDP on health care, compared to 10.9% in Switzerland, 10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada, and 9.5 in France, all counties that provide health care to all of their citizens. Uninsured Americans incur over $40 billion in costs each year, 85% of which is payed by federal, state, and local governments.
About half of bankruptcies filed every year, somewhere around two million, are due to medical costs. Many of these people have health insurance, but are still forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. Most Americans are one medical semi-catastrophe away from bankruptcy. Part of the problem is that doctors and hospitals are unwilling or unable to negotiate flexible payment options.
Polls show that Americans are deeply unsatisfied with the current health care system and support a single-payer system by about 2:1 margin.
There are more facts and stats like this all over the internet, but the upshot is that the United States has a health care crisis. Health care costs are rising faster than wages and inflation, so less and less people are able to afford health care, so more and more people are forced into Medicaid or no insurance, increasing costs exponentially and decreasing the overall health of the nation.
But, of course, these statistics fail to account for the human side of the health care problem. There are innumerable stories of good people being completely destroyed by what would otherwise have been preventable or treatable illnesses. Besides the toll being uninsured takes on health and in the pocketbook, there is the added emotional pressures of stress, anxiety, and depression.
This is a moral issue foremost. Every other industrialized country offers at least basic medical care to all its citizens, recognizing health care as a right, not a privilege. The United States has more wealth and opportunity than any other nation, but fails to provide for the basic health needs of all its citizens. We have the means to alleviate immense suffering by providing health care to every American and we are at a point where it is irresponsible not to.
There are certain objections to a universal, or single-payer, health care system. The main objection is the cost. Certainly there would be increased taxation to cover the cost of the system, somewhere in the billions of dollars. This cost is offset by no longer paying monthly premiums, fewer developmental losses for children, greater years of workforce participation for healthy adults, increased preventative care, lower demand on ER's, increasing the strength of local economies, and more. As noted above, industrialized nations who provide some level of health care to all its citizens actually pay less as a percent of GDP than the United States.
Another objection is that the United States has the best health care system in the world and that the free market is the best system, not government control which would degrade quality. The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality and about 20th in overall mortality. The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall the United States is 67th. The free market system we currently employ has costs rising out of control, coverage at an all time low, and the lowest satisfaction among users and doctors of any industrialized country.
Even if there was a slight decrease in perceived quality of care, or some longer waiting periods for non-essential medical care (like getting warts removed), how does that weigh against the benefit of having all Americans insured? This is a matter of values, I guess. I have a relative who has said that he would rather die of cancer as an uninsured than have a universal coverage system. I have a friend who, while not endorsing an American single-payer system, had cancer as a child in England and received top-of-the-line medical care which saved his life and cost his family nothing out of pocket (besides the taxes for the system to begin with), while families in similar situations here in America regularly lose everything they own to fight that battle. Would we rather wait longer for some medical services in order to guarantee coverage for all Americans, or keep the current system and excludes tens of millions?
If the argument is that we have to keep government out of health care, then it is assumed that it is acceptable to have about one in six people in the country without insurance, with disproportional representation by poor and minorities. The free market system simply will never cover everyone. There are no other alternatives. Charities and churches cannot and will never have the capacity to insure the poor.
If, on the other hand, we see health care as a moral issue, where we seek for equality for all Americans, including in our ability to be healthy, then the government must get involved. Government cannot solve all our problems, or even most of them, but it can be useful, and in the case of health care, essential.
The Book of Mormon teaches us to care for the sick:
Alma 1: 27, 30. And:
Mormon 8: 37, 39. I am not saying that government-based universal health care is the only way to keep the commandment to tend to the sick, but it is a way and it does reach the most possible people.
I think we should want to provide adequate medical care to every American. The system we have right now is broken and does not have the potential to do so, so it is time for change. One proposal is President Obama's, which is not a single-payer system, but does have the potential to reach every American, and it worthy of our support.
Again, we can argue the costs and benefits, and hopefully will, but if we shift the focus to the families and individuals, and emphasize the right of all people to medical care, we come closer to the type of just and equal America that we can acheive.
The uninsured are less likely to obtain preventative care, more likely to receive poor treatment for chronic sickness, and more likely to put off needed medical care making the problem worse.
The reason employer-sponsored coverage is eroding is because insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Since 1999, employment-based premiums have risen 120%, compared to 44% inflation and 29% wage growth. The United States spends about 17% of its GDP on health care, compared to 10.9% in Switzerland, 10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada, and 9.5 in France, all counties that provide health care to all of their citizens. Uninsured Americans incur over $40 billion in costs each year, 85% of which is payed by federal, state, and local governments.
About half of bankruptcies filed every year, somewhere around two million, are due to medical costs. Many of these people have health insurance, but are still forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. Most Americans are one medical semi-catastrophe away from bankruptcy. Part of the problem is that doctors and hospitals are unwilling or unable to negotiate flexible payment options.
Polls show that Americans are deeply unsatisfied with the current health care system and support a single-payer system by about 2:1 margin.
There are more facts and stats like this all over the internet, but the upshot is that the United States has a health care crisis. Health care costs are rising faster than wages and inflation, so less and less people are able to afford health care, so more and more people are forced into Medicaid or no insurance, increasing costs exponentially and decreasing the overall health of the nation.
But, of course, these statistics fail to account for the human side of the health care problem. There are innumerable stories of good people being completely destroyed by what would otherwise have been preventable or treatable illnesses. Besides the toll being uninsured takes on health and in the pocketbook, there is the added emotional pressures of stress, anxiety, and depression.
This is a moral issue foremost. Every other industrialized country offers at least basic medical care to all its citizens, recognizing health care as a right, not a privilege. The United States has more wealth and opportunity than any other nation, but fails to provide for the basic health needs of all its citizens. We have the means to alleviate immense suffering by providing health care to every American and we are at a point where it is irresponsible not to.
There are certain objections to a universal, or single-payer, health care system. The main objection is the cost. Certainly there would be increased taxation to cover the cost of the system, somewhere in the billions of dollars. This cost is offset by no longer paying monthly premiums, fewer developmental losses for children, greater years of workforce participation for healthy adults, increased preventative care, lower demand on ER's, increasing the strength of local economies, and more. As noted above, industrialized nations who provide some level of health care to all its citizens actually pay less as a percent of GDP than the United States.
Another objection is that the United States has the best health care system in the world and that the free market is the best system, not government control which would degrade quality. The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality and about 20th in overall mortality. The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall the United States is 67th. The free market system we currently employ has costs rising out of control, coverage at an all time low, and the lowest satisfaction among users and doctors of any industrialized country.
Even if there was a slight decrease in perceived quality of care, or some longer waiting periods for non-essential medical care (like getting warts removed), how does that weigh against the benefit of having all Americans insured? This is a matter of values, I guess. I have a relative who has said that he would rather die of cancer as an uninsured than have a universal coverage system. I have a friend who, while not endorsing an American single-payer system, had cancer as a child in England and received top-of-the-line medical care which saved his life and cost his family nothing out of pocket (besides the taxes for the system to begin with), while families in similar situations here in America regularly lose everything they own to fight that battle. Would we rather wait longer for some medical services in order to guarantee coverage for all Americans, or keep the current system and excludes tens of millions?
If the argument is that we have to keep government out of health care, then it is assumed that it is acceptable to have about one in six people in the country without insurance, with disproportional representation by poor and minorities. The free market system simply will never cover everyone. There are no other alternatives. Charities and churches cannot and will never have the capacity to insure the poor.
If, on the other hand, we see health care as a moral issue, where we seek for equality for all Americans, including in our ability to be healthy, then the government must get involved. Government cannot solve all our problems, or even most of them, but it can be useful, and in the case of health care, essential.
The Book of Mormon teaches us to care for the sick:
27 And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely.• • •30 And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.
37 For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel, and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.• • •
I think we should want to provide adequate medical care to every American. The system we have right now is broken and does not have the potential to do so, so it is time for change. One proposal is President Obama's, which is not a single-payer system, but does have the potential to reach every American, and it worthy of our support.
Again, we can argue the costs and benefits, and hopefully will, but if we shift the focus to the families and individuals, and emphasize the right of all people to medical care, we come closer to the type of just and equal America that we can acheive.
Kamis, 12 Februari 2009
Darwin, Science, and Truth
Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. I am about as far away from a scientist as you can be, but I love my National Geographic and believe that we should all make efforts to understand as much science and art and law and everything else as we can. My belief is that science and religion are not at odds. Here is a fairly long quote from Brigham Young on the intersection of science and religion, taken from Cool New Thang:
When Darwin went to South America and the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his theory of evolution, I believe he was inspired, as Brigham Young explains above. When geologists show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe started with a Big Bang 14 billion years ago, their theories and laws have an aspect of revealed Truth as far as we understand the laws of the universe correctly. As we study the scriptures, live faithfully, and grow closer to our Heavenly Father, the more we will see that He works through laws and principles that we can eventually understand.
I particularly like how Brigham Young expands science to include government. We know that God is a God of order in all things. Therefore we must also seek out order in all things. When our governments eschew science and are instead ruled by ideology alone, confusion, anarchy, and plain old ineffectiveness ensue. When law and government have for their basis science, rational thought, and deliberate understanding they can be stable and equitable. Too often our government leaders try to appeal to our basest and rawest emotions in order to pass laws whose only goal is to consolidate power or satisfy a whim, instead of appealing to our higher capacities of reason in order to promote the general welfare over the long term.
So on this 200th birthday of Darwin, I hope we can step back and rededicate ourselves to respectful discourse which enlightens and unifies instead of divides (myself includes, especially). I hope we can promote Truth wherever it is found, whether in science or art or religion, which are all one and come from the same Source anyway.
It was observed here just now that we differ from the Christian world in our religious faith and belief; and so we do very materially. I am not astonished that infidelity prevails to a great extent among the inhabitants of the earth, for the religious teachers of the people advance many ideas and notions for truth which are in opposition to and contradict facts demonstrated by science, and which are generally understood. Says the scientific man, “I do not see your religion to be true; I do not understand the law, light, rules, religion, or whatever you call it, which you say God has revealed; it is confusion to me, and if I submit to and embrace your views and theories I must reject the facts which science demonstrates to me.” This is the position, and the line of demarcation has been plainly drawn, by those who profess Christianity, between the sciences and revealed religion. You take, for instance, our geologists, and they tell us that this earth has been in existence for thousands and millions of years. They think, and they have good reason for their faith, that their researches and investigations enable them to demonstrate that this earth has been in existence as long as they assert it has; and they say, “If the Lord, as religionists declare, made the earth out of nothing in six days, six thousand years ago, our studies are all vain; but by what we can learn from nature and the immutable laws of the Creator as revealed therein, we know that your theories are incorrect and consequently we must reject your religions as false and vain; we must be what you call infidels, with the demonstrated truths of science in our possession; or, rejecting those truths, become enthusiasts in, what you call, Christianity.”I highlighted a few quotes that I thought were particularly important. I think this is a beautiful reconciliation of religious truth and scientific truth. And the reconciliation is this: there is nothing to reconcile. Our God is a God of science because there is only one Truth, and all true science is revealed by God. The closer we come to understanding how God works, the more knowledge we will gain of science, and visa versa.In these respects we differ, from the Christian world, for our religion will not clash with or contradict the facts of science in any particular. You may take geology, for instance, and it is a true science; not that I would say for a moment that all the conclusions and deductions of its professors are true, but its leading principles are; they are facts-they are eternal; and to assert that the Lord made this earth out of nothing is preposterous and impossible. God never made something out of nothing; it is not in the economy or law by which the worlds were, are, or will exist. There is an eternity before us, and it is full of matter; and if we but understand enough of the Lord and his ways, we would say that he took of this matter and organized this earth from it. How long it has been organized it is not for me to say, and I do not care anything about it. As for the Bible account of the creation we may say that the Lord gave it to Moses, or rather Moses obtained the history and traditions of the fathers, and from these picked out what he considered necessary, and that account has been handed down from age to age, and we have got it, no matter whether it is correct or not, and whether the Lord found the earth empty and void, whether he made it out of nothing or out of the rude elements; or whether he made it in six days or in as many millions of years, is and will remain a matter of speculation in the minds of men unless he give revelation on the subject. If we understood the process of creation there would be no mystery about it, it would be all reasonable and plain, for there is no mystery except to the ignorant. This we know by what we have learned naturally since we have had a being on the earth.” (Journal of Discourses 14:115-117)
I want to say a few words about our religion, but first I will ask you to remember this prayer which I offered at the commencement of my remarks with regard to the poor. If you will do that, they will be looked after and brought home. Now we will talk a little about our religion. Ask the scientific men of the world how many of the arts can be reduced to a science? When they are so reduced they become permanent; but until then they are uncertain. They go and come, appear and disappear. When they are reduced to science and system their permanency, and stability are assured. It is so with government-until it is reduced to science it is liable to be rent asunder by anarchy and confusion, and caprice and scattered to the four winds. Government, to be stable and permanent and have any show for success must be reduced to a science. It is the same with religion; but our traditions are such that it is one of the most difficult things in the world to make men believe that the revealed religion of heaven is a pure science, and all true science in the possession of men now is a part of the religion of heaven and has been revealed from that source. But it is hard to get the people to believe that God is a scientific character, that He lives by science or strict law, that by this He is, and by law he was made what He is; and will remain to all eternity because of His faithful adherence to law. It is a most difficult thing to make the people believe that every art and science and all wisdom comes from Him, and that He is their Author. Our spirits are His: He begot them. We are His children; He set the machine in motion to produce our tabernacles; and when men discard the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being and treat it with lightness, as Brother Taylor says, they are fools. It is strange that scientific men do not realize that, all they know is derived from Him; to suppose, or to foster the idea for one moment, that they are the originators of the wisdom they possess is folly in the highest! Such men do not know themselves. As for ignoring the principle of the existence of a Supreme Being, I would as soon ignore the idea that this house came into existence without the agency of intelligent beings. (Journal of Discourses 13:300)
When Darwin went to South America and the Galapagos Islands and began to formulate his theory of evolution, I believe he was inspired, as Brigham Young explains above. When geologists show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that the universe started with a Big Bang 14 billion years ago, their theories and laws have an aspect of revealed Truth as far as we understand the laws of the universe correctly. As we study the scriptures, live faithfully, and grow closer to our Heavenly Father, the more we will see that He works through laws and principles that we can eventually understand.
I particularly like how Brigham Young expands science to include government. We know that God is a God of order in all things. Therefore we must also seek out order in all things. When our governments eschew science and are instead ruled by ideology alone, confusion, anarchy, and plain old ineffectiveness ensue. When law and government have for their basis science, rational thought, and deliberate understanding they can be stable and equitable. Too often our government leaders try to appeal to our basest and rawest emotions in order to pass laws whose only goal is to consolidate power or satisfy a whim, instead of appealing to our higher capacities of reason in order to promote the general welfare over the long term.
So on this 200th birthday of Darwin, I hope we can step back and rededicate ourselves to respectful discourse which enlightens and unifies instead of divides (myself includes, especially). I hope we can promote Truth wherever it is found, whether in science or art or religion, which are all one and come from the same Source anyway.
Selasa, 10 Februari 2009
Common Ground Initiative
Equality Utah is an organization whose stated mission is to "secure equal rights and protections for LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender] Utahns and their families." In response to certain comments made by Church officials in the wake of Prop 8, Equality Utah proposed five bills, collectively called the Common Ground Initiative (CGI), that were introduced to the 2009 Utah legislature. The five bills are aimed at extending certain rights to LGBT couples.
1. Health Care - extending benefits for state employees to their adult designees.
2. Housing and Employment - making it illegal to fire or evict a person based on sexual orientation.
3. Wrongful Deaths - allowing insurance and inheritance in deaths involving negligence or malpractice to LGBT partners.
4. Adult Joint Support Declaration - allowing rights of inheritence, insurance, and housing upon signing of a declaration.
5. Repealing the part of Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) which states "no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
The legislature defeated the Wrongful Deaths bill in committee, meaning it did not have the chance to be voted on by the full legislature. The bills' sponsors pulled the Amendment 3 bill because it was apparent that it would never pass and was seen as maybe too much for the Utah legislature to swallow right now.
It is time to support these bills, not to somehow "make up" for the Proposition 8 unpleasantness, or to try to repair the Church's public image, but because supporting equality for all people is the right thing to do.
The Church's position is that it "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." The Church has not commented on the CGI, but on November 5th, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.” This statement was qualified by Church spokesman Michael Otterson:
There is a continuum that looks something like this: no rights for same-sex couples --> rights such as inheritance, housing, insurance, hospital visitations --> civil unions --> same-sex marriage. The Church has come out unequivocally in favor of rights for gays and gay couples, and qualifiedly for civil unions, and is opposed to same-sex marriage. I would think the reasoning goes something like this: Marriage is covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It is sacred in nature and cannot be expanded to include same-sex couples. While we find the practice of homosexuality immoral, we support basic equality for homosexuals because it is both the Christian thing to do and because we need to be good members of a community and accept them for who they are, even if we disagree with their lifestyle.
While marriage is a religious institution, rights such as those found in the CGI are government and community based. We should absolutely make sure that every citizen is given the same basic rights by the government, while protecting our beliefs as a religion. I do not see a conflict in these views.
So if a majority of Utahns support the rights found in the CGI, the Church supports those rights, and the governor supports them, why is the state legislature opposed? The Utah state legislature is beholden to ultra-right wing groups, the Eagle Forum and the Sutherland Institute, that have a history of hatred and discrimination. I am not going to outline the history and views of these groups here and now, but they are the groups that influence the Utah Republican legislators and they are the groups that block progress in Utah.
You can find contact information for your state Senate and House representatives here and here. If you are so inclined, I would encourage you to email or call them and show support for social justice in Utah.
1. Health Care - extending benefits for state employees to their adult designees.
2. Housing and Employment - making it illegal to fire or evict a person based on sexual orientation.
3. Wrongful Deaths - allowing insurance and inheritance in deaths involving negligence or malpractice to LGBT partners.
4. Adult Joint Support Declaration - allowing rights of inheritence, insurance, and housing upon signing of a declaration.
5. Repealing the part of Amendment 3 to the Utah Constitution (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman) which states "no other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as marriage or be given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect."
The legislature defeated the Wrongful Deaths bill in committee, meaning it did not have the chance to be voted on by the full legislature. The bills' sponsors pulled the Amendment 3 bill because it was apparent that it would never pass and was seen as maybe too much for the Utah legislature to swallow right now.
It is time to support these bills, not to somehow "make up" for the Proposition 8 unpleasantness, or to try to repair the Church's public image, but because supporting equality for all people is the right thing to do.
The Church's position is that it "does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches." The Church has not commented on the CGI, but on November 5th, Elder L. Whitney Clayton stated the LDS Church does not oppose “civil unions or domestic partnerships.” This statement was qualified by Church spokesman Michael Otterson:
But spokesman Michael Otterson suggested a few days ago to a Washington Post reporter that the church's post-election remarks were "based on civil unions in California and that no decision has been made regarding similar rights in Utah," the paper said. "'I don't want to give the impression that the church is saying civil unions in all cases are OK,'" Otterson was quoted as saying, according to the Tribune.Polls show that a strong majority of Utahns, including an even split of Mormons, support additional rights and protections for gay couples. One poll showed 63% support the rights found in the Common Ground Initiative, another showed 56% support. Both polls showed an opposition to same-sex couple adoption, which is not part of the CGI. Seventy percent of Utahns, however, oppose civil unions. That is at odds with Governor Huntsman, who has come out in support of civil unions.
There is a continuum that looks something like this: no rights for same-sex couples --> rights such as inheritance, housing, insurance, hospital visitations --> civil unions --> same-sex marriage. The Church has come out unequivocally in favor of rights for gays and gay couples, and qualifiedly for civil unions, and is opposed to same-sex marriage. I would think the reasoning goes something like this: Marriage is covenant between a man, a woman, and God. It is sacred in nature and cannot be expanded to include same-sex couples. While we find the practice of homosexuality immoral, we support basic equality for homosexuals because it is both the Christian thing to do and because we need to be good members of a community and accept them for who they are, even if we disagree with their lifestyle.
While marriage is a religious institution, rights such as those found in the CGI are government and community based. We should absolutely make sure that every citizen is given the same basic rights by the government, while protecting our beliefs as a religion. I do not see a conflict in these views.
So if a majority of Utahns support the rights found in the CGI, the Church supports those rights, and the governor supports them, why is the state legislature opposed? The Utah state legislature is beholden to ultra-right wing groups, the Eagle Forum and the Sutherland Institute, that have a history of hatred and discrimination. I am not going to outline the history and views of these groups here and now, but they are the groups that influence the Utah Republican legislators and they are the groups that block progress in Utah.
You can find contact information for your state Senate and House representatives here and here. If you are so inclined, I would encourage you to email or call them and show support for social justice in Utah.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)