The Sin of Driving an SUV?

As the Salt Lake Valley fills with air pollution due to the inversion to the point that you can't see any of the mountains that surround it, and these are nine and ten thousand foot peaks, I can't help but think of Moroni.

An inversion, by the way, is where cold air gets trapped closer to the ground by a cap of warm air. As a result, all of the pollution and smog gets trapped, in Salt Lake's case, in the valley. This can lead to serious health risks and a major deterioration of visibility, as well as being ugly to the point of depression. As you go up the canyons not only does it get warmer, paradoxically, but when you get above the inversion you can look down on a smog filled valley which looks like a bowl filled with the milk left over from Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal. So, in one way at least, I was kind of happy to take the scouts out on winter camp last weekend. And I will say this about the inversion, it makes for beautiful sunrises. Just before dawn the whole valley is this thick, eerie blue, like in deep water where the sun just barely makes it through. Then, just as the sun rises, the whole valley turns bright yellow. Unfortunately, this lasts just a few minutes, then the haze unmasks itself and becomes whitish-brown and disgusting.

There is something vaguely just, however, about an inversion. Usually we create all this air pollution and it just gets swept away by the prevailing winds and we never have to deal with it, but during an inversion we are forced to live with it as it accumulates and we get to see just how much we pollute the air. In business speak I believe this is referred to as internalizing an externality. Here is a nice picture of it:



Anyway . . . Moroni was, of course, the last prophet of the Nephites, and the last living Nephite. He prophesied that the Book of Mormon would come forth in a pretty crappy time in Earth's history, which he described in great detail. Some examples of what would be going on when the Book of Mormon was revealed are that churches will seek for monetary gain instead of spiritual enlightenment, wars, earthquakes, pride, murder, stealing, lying, justification of sin, secret combinations, and you get the point. Here's another one Moroni snuck in there:

"Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be great pollutions upon the face of the earth."

I will leave it to the prophets to declare what is a sin and what isn't (and the title is obviously a joke), but it appears that polluting is frowned upon at the very least. Which makes sense when we consider that we were given this beautiful world and put in dominion over it. Polluting the earth seems like a poor performance of our stewardship when we know that there are plenty of alternatives in order to pollute less.

Keeping this short because I have a problem being concise, I just feel like if we believe that the earth was created for us, purposely made to be both functional and beautiful, we, as members of the church, and as always I implicate myself as well, need to make those hard choices which set an example of good environmental stewardship. If you are interesting in reading a little more about Mormonism and environmentalism, and I think you should, here are a few links:

Hugh Nibley:
Brigham Young and the Environment
Man's Dominion, or Subduing the Earth
Stewardship of the Air

Professor George B. Handley from BYU:
LDS Belief and the Environment

Here's a hodgepodge (that's right, hodgepodge) of references:
Mormon Environmental Ethic

The Church has no specific stance on modern-day environmentalism, as Prof. Handley notes. These links are not purported doctrine, or suggestions to the First Presidency or Twelve Apostles. What I want to propose is that a modern-day environmentalism is perfectly compatible with church doctrine and, in my mind, a good fit. The culture of the West, including Utah, has traditionally been one of extraction of natural resources and taming the wild, which makes sense given the history of its settlement. But we are at a time now where we need to make more long term decisions about how we protect the environment, and I think the Gospel lends a solid foundation.

A Society of Guns

Two recent events spurred this post. First, I read this story in the Salt Lake Tribune, and others like it, which show a rise in gun sales, despite a faltering economy, leading up to Obama becoming President. Second, I ran into a friend recently who was given a handgun for Christmas from his father-in-law. This is about the last person on earth who I would voluntarily own a gun and we had a good laugh about it. Soon after giving him the gun, the father-in-law sent my friend an article about a kid who got drunk and went home to the wrong house. The mistaken kid was banging on the door trying to get in when the home owner shot and killed him. The kid was unarmed. The father-in-law sent my friend this article as an example of why gun ownership was good.

Here are some thoughts. First, the Democratic Party has (sadly) taken gun control off the table since it proved to be a political loser for Al Gore. There is little or no threat of gun control during an Obama administration and a Democratically controlled Congress. So all of these people spending their hard-earned money in a rush to beat out new gun laws are are chicken littles or crying wolf or some other appropriate allusion.

Second, let me state that I have no real problem with guns owned for certain types of hunting. In my mind, there are two types of hunting. There is hunting for food and hunting for sport. I don't think I can criticize hunting for food, especially if used in a program like Hunt for the Hungry which donates the meat to the poor. Hunting for sport, for me, is a little more problematic. When I see a beautiful animal, a creation of God, I don't wish I could put a bullet in its heart and mount it severed head on my wall. I also think about the animals hunted to extinction, or near extinction. The passenger pigeon, for instance, once numbered in the billions and flocks would take hours to pass over head. Martha, the last passenger pigeon, died in 1914. In Africa, trophy hunters have brought certain rhino species to the brink of extinction, and there are countless other examples. On the other hand, hunters have been some of the leading land conservationists, which I appreciate, even though the ironic motivation for the conservation is so they can continue to kill the animal being conserved. In any case, though hunting is a mixed bag philosophically and theologically (eat meat sparingly and, yes, I'm pointing a finger at myself, too), I have no real outrage for gun owners using their guns for hunting.

The problem, of course, is widespread ownership of handguns and assault weapons. To get the pesky Second Amendment thing out of the way, here it is in its entirety:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The language is unclear as to whether the right to bear arms is limited to a "well regulated Militia" or whether anyone has that right. I imagine most people don't realize that the second amendment has that clause related to militias and simply know it as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." So those are the lines of the legal debate. A recent Supreme Court decision leaned toward affording Second Amendment rights to individuals by striking D.C.'s total handgun ban, but did not make any decisions as to a state's hypothetical ban on firearms. I think if you showed the amendment to your average sixth grader she would come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is linked to militias. It is hard to just argue the clause "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" right out of the amendment.

So the legal arguments are interesting, and it goes much deeper, but I'm more interested in the policy and the underlying arguments for gun ownership and gun control. Handguns and assault weapons, as far as I can tell, serve only one practical purpose: killing other human beings. That is a huge problem for me. The streets are flooded with guns and, no coincidence, violence. Of course there is no practical way to get all these guns off the streets, but we could begin that task if we wanted.

There are as many statistics and studies out there linking guns to violence or lack of violence as there are guns in the United States (hundreds of millions). Some statistics show that you are more likely to kill a person (usually a family member) by accident than in self-defense, while some show that a large number of murders and violent crime are averted because of guns used in self-defense. Some statistics show that countries with very restrictive gun laws (e.g. Japan, UK) have much lower murder and violence rates than the US, while others show that countries with very lax gun laws (e.g. Switzerland, Israel) have very low violence and murder rates. Some studies show that American kids are at particular risk of gun violence and accidents, while some show that American kids are more safe because of guns. In sum, just drop the statistical arguments. They will say whatever you want them to say and there is probably a nugget of truth in them all accompanied by outright bias.

This is not about statistics, this is about our culture and our values and what we choose to emphasize. This is about changing our mindset from seeming outright eagerness to use a gun against a hypothetical threatening person to finding a way to reduce violence and crime in the first place. Crime is often linked to poverty, lack of opportunity, and lack of education. What if we put a real effort into avoiding crime at the front end instead of at the back end? What if, as a society, we decided to improve our public school system, particularly in inner cities and other poor areas, and give those kids a real chance to succeed instead of making sure we could carry a concealed weapon? What if we focus on making college affordable for every kid that wants to attend instead of making guns available to anyone who walks in the store with a drivers license?

It seems to me that promoting gun ownership to forestall crime, whose root is found in deeeper societal ills, is like telling a lie to cover up a previous lie that people are on to. Or, and I'm really dishing out the similes now, it is like if you decide to get a tattoo, and it turns out really crappy and ugly. So you go back and have a little more decoration added to cover the original mess, but that's not quite right, either, so you continue the process until the next thing you know you have tattoos unicorns and def leppard lyrics and names of ex-girlfriends and countless other things covering 90% of your body.

Throwing guns at crime (or any other societal problem) may have some benefit, but those guns also add to the crime. So crime goes up and we decide to add more guns to non-criminals, but then criminals find it easier to get guns, and so forth. Next thing you know we live in a society replete with guns, with very little control over who has them and how they use them. I don't want to live in that society. I want to live in a society where we find solutions at the root of the problem as opposed to at the fruit.

Gun ownership is a symptom, I believe, of a society that has given up on finding answers to the really hard problems and is instead happy to find the easy short term fixes, ignoring the fact that they do long term harm.

We should be a society, especially as Mormons, that value life and justice and mercy above all else. We should not be afraid to search for the hard answers and difficult truths, and I believe one is that guns and violence go together always and that justice and mercy and real-life opportunities to improve one's life at the beginning are the answers, not more guns.

A Utah Man Am I

I have some posts brewing on guns and Mormons in the Senate, but this takes precedent. After the Utes' romp over Alabama two conclusions must be reached. Utah deserves at least a share of the national title and the 2008-09 Utes are the state of Utah's greatest ever college football team. And that includes the "national champion" 1984 BYU Cougars.

As to the first point, Utah is the only undefeated team in college football. They beat four teams (BYU, TCU, Oregon St., and Alabama) ranked at the end of the season. They beat an SEC powerhouse, Alabama, ranked number one for much of the season and 15 minutes away from the national championship game, decidedly. They beat Alabama better than Florida did. They beat the team, Oregon St., that beat USC. The Utes may or may not be the best team in college football this year, but they have the best resume.

As to the second point, BYU's 1984 team had nowhere near the year of this year's Utes, and it's really not even close. In the Cougar's 1984 season they beat Pittsburgh. Pitt was ranked #3 at the time but finished the season 3-7-1. This is similar to the Utes' win over Michigan this year, which was Utah's least impressive win, in hindsight. They beat no teams ranked in the final polls. 1984 BYU also beat Michigan in the Holiday Bowl. I always assumed this is what propelled BYU to the national championship, a bowl win over a football powerhouse. Michigan was 6-6 that year, barely bowl eligible, and finished sixth in the Big Ten. Hardly an impressive win.

The difference is that BCS makes it impossible for a non-BCS team to win the national championship. The BCS was not a problem for BYU in 1984. If you took Utah's resume this year and put in in 1984, the Utes would be clear national champions over BYU. If you took BYU's 1984 resume and plugged it in this year, you'd have Ball St. but with a bowl win over a crappy team.

And 1984 BYU probably ranks behind 2004 Utah, the other undefeated, BCS-busting Utah team.

2008 Utah Utes: deserving national champion and best ever Utah college football team.

Prop 8 Revisited

My brother is currently working on his PhD at Harvard and has seen his fair share of politics there this past year. He has a gay friend in his creative writing class who began e-mailing him a couple months ago about his feelings concerning Prop 8 and the LDS church. My brother sent our family his correspondence with this friend and I wanted to share (hope that's okay, Justin.) He is much more eloquent in his writing than I am and said so many things I've thought but didn't know exactly the right way to word it. Here are the latest e-mails from my brother's friend, and then my brother's response. (It's a little long but worth the read.)

Hi Justin,

Hope you had a splendid Thanksgiving. You have a right to choose your belief but this is the problem with our self-absorbed society. That for too long we make choices or vote based on what is best for our selves, our immediate family, or our Church. For example, I've heard endless Republicans voting in 2000 and 2004 for Bush solely for tax-break reasons and didn't really worry much about the other issues. This is quite the shame and the reason we are in the dire predicament we are today. I think model citizens must vote on what is best for the greater good, the betterment of society. Even you yourself admit, that gays are oppressed, by suggesting when gay marriage becomes universal that somehow you will be. First, let me assure you that as a married, hetero, white male you will always be accepted in society. I admire people like the famous Steven Young and his wife who are supporting our cause because they realize that "separate but equal" must not stand. For too long gays have lived on the fringes of society, even closeted, gay Republican politicians have been getting caught in public parks, bathroom stalls, and canvassing the internet for their longings. Many teens are driven out of their homes, physically and mentally abused, and end up homeless, addicted, and in many cases contract HIV. This is not the life that most gays want to live but being marginalizes has its consequences. GLBT's deserve to be part of mainstream America and part of humanity's social fabric. We make the world colorful with our creative designs, serve disproportionately yet discreetly in the military, and comprise some of the most caring teachers and care-takers. The time for suffering in silence is over. We demand the right to be happy and enjoy the fruits of unconditional love. We want to get married, have the right to adopt or bear children, and buy vacation homes in suburban enclaves, next door to our hetero counterparts, if we choose to. I know this idea might be hard for a devout person like you to chew on. But I have a problem with Mormons telling gays to be celibate in this life with the promise of quenching their thirsts in paradise. This false promise is like Al Qaeda promising its terrorists recruits to target Christendom with the promise of 70 virgins in paradise. I am sorry to compare your religion to rogue Muslim extremists but the reality is that a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion.

I think you are right that the tide is changing. PROGRESSIVES are increasingly become a powerful force and the good news is we accept and allow for ALL to be part of holistic and mosaic society. Progressive will never exclude anybody, not even Mormons. But for the sake of my book, I think its better the controversy ensues so I can sell more copies . . . just kidding. :)

Warm cordial regards,

XXXXX

Hello again, XXXX. I apologize for not writing any sooner, but I've had a lot going on with Christmas shopping and homework for classes.

If I may, I’d like to address the points of your email. I hope that as I do though you will understand that I am trying to do so in the least contentious way possible (I respect you as a friend and, though we disagree on this issue, I see it as no reason why we should have hard feelings with one another).

Regarding your comment that our country should not vote based on “what is best for our selves, our immediate family, or our church”... I think that’s a question of splitting hairs and I disagree. I think that each individual should vote how their conscience dictates to them and should not be swayed by popular opinion, Hollywood , cult leaders, superstition, or other silly things. However, I think a person should DEFINITELY vote to protect their family (especially their immediate family). I think the family is the basic building block of society (which is cliché but true nonetheless) and I feel very strongly about voting to protect my family. And if society tells me that I’m intolerant or a bigot because I want to protect my family, then it is they who are being intolerant of my own views and values--hence my aforementioned fear of being discriminated against. And it’s already coming true. Because Mormons don’t support gay marriage it has now conveniently become “pc” to attack us for other things that make us different (I’ve seen the news media and I’m not blind to what people in the Harvard community are whispering). That’s unfair though. It’s a tyranny on tolerance, and tolerance has to go both ways. You can call me “self-absorbed” if you want, but that is simply discriminating against me for my views.

As for republicans voting for Bush solely because of tax-break reasons: if that’s true, then they are all idiots. I believe and hope that the majority of people who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 did so because they thought he would best fulfill the office of president and not for personal/financial gain. Still, I realize that is the stereotype of the Republican Party and, I am the first to admit, in every stereotype there is a little bit of truth. So I agree that it is “quite the shame” and do not associate myself with anyone who would do that.

As for the question of whether gays are being oppressed, I can only say that I myself do not oppress anyone nor do I support people that do. That being said, the people who voted for Proposition 8 in California did not deny gays of any “rights.” Proposition 8 only sought to keep the definition of marriage between a man and a woman and only denied homosexuals the use of that definition. However, gays who cohabitate in California are still able to enjoy the same “rights” that are given by the US Government and California and enjoyed by married couples. They can have a civil union, but they are not “married.” And, for you, I suppose that becomes me forcing my beliefs on other people. For me, however, it is an issue of protecting my own rights as a heterosexual married man. You may not understand that though, so let me explain...

If Proposition 8 had failed, then gays would have been able to use the definition of marriage to support their lifestyle. That means that homosexuals could approach ministers, priests, and clergymen of any denomination and ask that they be married. The clergyman in question, who does not believe in homosexuality, refuses to marry the homosexual couple. The homosexual couple, in turn, feels that they are being “discriminated against” because the clergyman refuses to accept their definition of morality as his own. They approach the government for redress. The government, who has in this situation defined marriage as between any two persons of legal consenting age (man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, etc.) agrees that the homosexual couple has been discriminated against and prosecutes the clergyman, forcing him to comply with the law and marry the homosexual couple. This is an infringement of the clergyman’s rights (freedom of religion), but the government doesn’t see it that way. The constitution has been changed to incorporate gay marriage and thus the clergyman must abide by the state’s ruling. The clergyman refuses. The government, in turn, denies his church its tax-exempt status and strips him of his right to marry anyone (if he’s not willing to marry homosexuals, then they’ll take away his license to marry heterosexuals). The clergyman has now been completely stripped of his legitimacy and his rights as an American citizen. In the good ol’ U.S. of A, he has been denied the right to freedom of religion. He has been labeled as intolerant and so others have become intolerant of him.

Now, that may seem like an extreme situation...but it’s not. In fact, here is an example of something similar that happened in Massachusetts (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/06/25/they_cared_for_the_children/). If gays are unhappy with the definition of civil unions and demand to have the definition of marriage placed on that union, that’s just one step away from discriminating against me and my church for not upholding that definition. And, while I support your ability to choose your lifestyle and sexual orientation and I feel you should have the same financial rights as proscribed by civil unions and domestic partnerships, I only see the same-sex marriage question as ending badly for me and those that can’t personally support homosexuality as being moral. Thus my earlier point: you may now feel you are being discriminated against--that you are a “second-class citizen”--but I no longer see this as an issue of civil rights. I see it as a slippery slope that leads to my rights of freedom of religion being discriminated against. People are trying to redefine my definition of marriage.

Now, if Steven Young chooses to support gay-marriage, that’s his prerogative (although, from what I understand, it’s only his wife that has come out on that side of the fence). He is welcome to do so though and I wish him the best. But I don’t listen to what the media says (or football stars). I make up my own mind about things.

Regarding closeted gay republicans...that’s up to the gay republican. If he feels that homosexuality is immoral, then I understand his feelings of oppression (for, aside from feeling oppressed by his community, he must also feel he is oppressing himself), and my heart goes out to him (or her). If he feels that homosexuality is not immoral though, then he should not feel oppressed. That’s the thing. I’m not going to discriminate against you or our gay republican friend because I disagree with your or his lifestyle (that’s hypocritical, discriminatory, and frankly distasteful). But I’m allowed to believe it’s immoral. And that shouldn’t really bother you because I also believe that having sex before marriage is immoral (and gambling, and alcohol, and pornography), but even though none of my non-Mormon friends believe that, they are still my very good friends (whom I love and respect) and I don’t think ill of them for doing those things (why should I if they don’t hold my views?).

As for the “many teens [that] are driven out of their homes, physically and mentally abused, and end up homeless, addicted, and in many cases contract HIV,” I sincerely wish that weren’t the case. I abhor human suffering and would not shun or abuse anyone because they were homosexual. So frankly, the comparison is a little insulting...because it assumes that by not supporting homosexuality I am somehow a factor in that equation. On the contrary, homosexuals in our church and in my family are accepted with open arms. And, while I will never tell that person that I think what they are doing is moral, I will tell them that I love them and won’t ever treat them any differently because of that lifestyle choice.

Now, the following quote I especially disagree with because it makes too many false assumptions:

“GLBT's deserve to be part of mainstream America and part of humanity's social fabric. We make the world colorful with our creative designs, serve disproportionately yet discreetly in the military, and comprise some of the most caring teachers and care-takers. The time for suffering in silence is over. We demand the right to be happy and enjoy the fruits of unconditional love. We want to get married, have the right to adopt or bear children, and buy vacation homes in suburban enclaves, next door to our hetero counterparts, if we choose to.”

To assume that gays are the sole source of the creative arts in the world is very offensive. Some gays are colorful and creative and others aren’t. That’s perpetuating a stereotype which, as I said before, is obviously based in some truth, but is nevertheless a stereotype and, as a generality, is false. I don’t know how many gays serve in the military...but neither do you, so to assume that they serve disproportionately is to assume too much. Either way, I respect and appreciate the sacrifice that all our servicemen make (be they gay or straight) and value all their sacrifices equally. As for being caring teachers and care-takers, I never said you weren’t...but so are many straight people...so what exactly are you accusing me of? Not recognizing the talents and skills of people merely because they are homosexual? That’s bigotry because you are assuming something hateful which I don’t in fact do. And as for vacation homes in suburban enclaves, you are more than welcome to be my neighbor. I have no problem with it nor do I see any reason why there should be. BUT, if my children ask me why our neighbors are two men living together, I will teach them about homosexuality and I will teach them that it is wrong (because I am practicing my freedom of religion). I will also teach my children that our homosexual neighbors are our friends and, even though they don’t believe as we do, they believe that what they are doing is ok and we should not treat them any differently than we treat our other friends. Likewise, I would teach my children and family to serve and support our homosexual neighbors. And I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, nor should I be discriminated against for doing so.

As for the right of the homosexual to adopt or bear children...that’s a whole separate can of worms that I don’t have the time to get into right now. Besides, we both know our opinions diverge on the matter and neither of us will likely convince the other of his opinion, so we probably shouldn’t bother addressing it. HOWEVER, if you’re curious why I believe the way I do and, rather than argue with me, you wish to hear the reasons for my beliefs, then I’m happy to tell them to you. But I doubt that’s the case (most people prefer arguing about politics over being understood by their friends). Still, if you’d ever like to have a candid discussion about what our mutual beliefs are (outside of our recent emails), I’d be happy to talk to you. I’d also be curious to hear more about your own views (on homosexuality but also on religion).

“I have a problem with Mormons telling gays to be celibate in this life with the promise of quenching their thirsts in paradise”: I’m not sure what you mean by ‘quenching their thirsts in paradise’ but I assume you mean that the desire will be taken away from them in the after life. And that’s actually not the case. We teach that the same desires, appetites, and passions one has in this life are carried over into the next...which is why it’s so important to learn to control them here (while we have a body and ample opportunities to learn self-control), rather than in the spirit world or when we are resurrected and it is too late to change. Which just goes to show that you are still assuming a lot things about me and my faith.

“This false promise is like Al Qaeda promising its terrorists recruits to target Christendom with the promise of 70 virgins in paradise. I am sorry to compare your religion to rogue Muslim extremists...”

Yes, I admit, that’s a bit of a low blow. But I believe the comparison you are trying to make is that I actually believe and practice what my religion teaches me (like, in your example, the Muslim terrorists). But the difference is that I am not forcing my religion on people by blowing up mosques and churches and killing people. I am not forcing my religion on people period. I am asserting my right to vote (as were my Mormon brothers and sisters in California ) and they did not force any religious principle on homosexuals. It could instead be argued that homosexuals were forcing their beliefs on a religious institution (marriage). But again, that’s something we probably won’t agree on and so I won’t bother belaboring the point. Suffice it to say, I am not offended by the remark (because I choose to associate myself with the positive connotation that I actually believe and defend my religion)...but I’m not blind to the fact that the comparison is meant to be insulting.

“...but the reality is that a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion.”

Yes, a truly liberal democracy will separate itself from the vestiges of religion. I don’t argue that. I’m conservative though so, frankly, I see that as a bad thing. Religion should never interfere with government, true, but the government should also never oppress those that have faith in a religion or allow those that hold no religion to persecute those that do. And recently I feel like Mormons are being persecuted because of their religious beliefs (which it seems other people want to label as “intolerance”). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q28UwAyzUkE

One final thing though...

I’m willing to admit that Mormons played a critical role in getting Proposition 8 passed in California ...but Mormons make up less than 2% of California ’s population. So clearly other people were the reason it passed. In fact, all of the Bishops of the Catholic Church supported the measure (as did Evangelicals and other Christian groups). Even more interesting, the largest group of people that voted for Proposition 8 was African-Americans (who turned out in droves to vote for Obama). So, really, it was the African-American vote that caused Proposition 8 to pass...so, if people are going to accuse my church of being intolerant, why aren’t they saying the same thing of African-Americans? Actually...I just checked, and it looks like they are: http://volokh.com/posts/1226094712.shtml

I’m not trying to argue with you or convince you of my beliefs, but lately I’ve been getting a lot of guff from people for exercising my own beliefs (even though I really had nothing to do with Proposition 8 and am just a faithful member of my church). Frankly, I think everyone else is being hypocritical by saying I’m intolerant. They are welcome to say it and are welcome to believe it (I support freedom of speech as well as freedom of religion), but when people get upset with me for standing up for my own beliefs...well, it’s easy to get upset. So fine, let’s disagree with each other (that’s what democracy is all about after all), but let’s not persecute people for upholding their beliefs. Just let people vote and don’t give them guff for doing what they feel is right.

Anyway, that’s my response (for what it’s worth). I remind you though that you are still my friend and I regard you as such (I don’t feel that you’ve ever discriminated against me or that you dislike me because I’m Mormon), so I hope you will take all that I said with a grain of salt and not take any of it as a personal attack. Similarly, I hope you will still consider me your friend (in spite of our differences of opinion) and I look forward to talking with you more in the future (perhaps on topics more amenable to our mutual interests, like creative writing). I also would be happy to continue our current conversation (in email or in person), provided that we both respect each other’s views (which I am actually very confident you would do because you’ve always been a very gracious gentleman in class and it is one of the reasons why I consider you my friend).

Best,

Justin

The Environment

I try not to get too worked up over politics, for the most part, because most policy decisions are reversible. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy talking policy, debating ideas, and getting offended for a while, but in the end tax policies can be readjusted, infrastructure can be modified, relationships with other countries can be tweaked, and the people's relationship with its government can be mended. Just now I am feeling pretty good about our ability to change course with a new President Obama at the helm.

There are, however, certain decisions that are not reversible. I am thinking about actions such as wars and casualties of war and the death penalty. These are actions that, once done, can't be taken back. Another big one, in my mind, is how we treat the environment. Once a species is lost, it can't be recreated (unless we find dinosaur DNA in an amber-entombed mosquito, in which case all bets are off). Once a habitat is lost it takes generations upon generations to reappear. Once a person gets cancer or some other terrible disease from our pollution, we can't take it back.

One of the driving forces to the modern environmental movement is this photo:



This is photo is entitled "Earthrise" and was snapped by astronaut William Anders from lunar orbit on December 24, 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission. For the first time in human history we were able to see the Earth completely, as a whole. Look at the photo and what do you see? Many people, for the first time, saw an egg-shell thin atmosphere, its smallness in the immensity of space, and how everything is intimately interconnected. It is no surprise that while orbiting the moon the crew of Apollo 8 read the creation story from Genesis to a live TV audience.

Here is the final verse from the creation story in Moses, chapter 2:

31 And I, God, saw everything that I had made, and, behold, all things which I had made were very good; and the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

This impresses on me the need for our religion and our country to take a leading role in the vigorous protection of the Earth, and to not let a species or a habitat be destroyed without a serious effort to preserve it for ourselves and our children. There are lots of good social policy reasons to protect the environment, which I will undoubtedly chronicle to our faithful droves of readers in the future, but the most persuasive arguments to me are those based on something deeper like faith and beauty and a connection to the Earth and a belief that the Earth is sacred and worth protecting.

The Fountain of Life

Stem cell research is another polarizing topic of late. I definitely think that people are intentionally under-informed on this subject. Perhaps if the details about stem cell research, including embryonic stem cell research are more clear, those supporting this area would not be instantly vilified. I will first say that all life must be treated with respect, whether it be human, canine, porcine, or a single cell.

As always, we have to start by introducing some terminology.

Multipotent progenitor cells - Cells that have the ability to develop into several other cell types, all of which are closely related. A good example is the blood stem cell that can develop into cells like red blood cells, platelets, T-cells, B-cells, etc.

Pluripotent progenitor cells - Cells that have the ability to differentiate into a large range of cell types. It is now commonly accepted that pluripotent cells can develop into any cell that is included as part of the embryo, i.e. organ tissue, bones, nervous system.

Totipotent progenitor cells - A cell that can produce all cell types needed to develop a fetus, including extra-embryonic tissue like the placenta.

The hope of stem cell research, is to take a multipotent or pluripotent stem cell and guide it to develop into a desired cell type. These cells can then be used to replace or repair damaged cells in the body. For example, a person with Type I diabetes might benefit from having stem cells developed into new, functioning pancreatic cells that can be placed to compensate for these patient's lack of insulin production. Amazing! One current limitation is that we can not take a multipotent stem cell, like a blood stem cell, and make it develop into a non-blood cell tissue like pancreatic tissue. Only a pluripotent stem gives us that power.

Where can we get multipotent stem cells? Some can be harvested from the umbilical chord, some from bone marrow, and some from fat. There is even a small amount of pluripotent stem cells available from these tissues.

If we can obtain pluripotent stem cells from adults, or non-embryonic sources, then why would we want to use embryonic stem cells? First off, the potency of non-embryonic is often limited, second, cells differentiated form adult stem cells often have shorter life times, or fail in transplantation. Embryonic stem cells (ESC) are truly pluripotent, and cells derived from ESC progenitors currently display superior performance at their relative function. That doesn't mean we abandon adult stem cells, it only means that we must continue to compare the function and potency of cells from all sources. In fact there is research currently investigating the potential of turning multipotent stem cell into a pluripotent one.

The controversy of ESC research I believe is mainly a result of false links to abortion. I do not know of ANY embryonic stem cell line that has come from an aborted fetus. The vast majority of ESC lines are the result of in-vitro fertilization. That is, the combination of sperm and egg outside the body, and chemical stimuli to induce proliferation. Despite all of the scientific advances, this cluster of cells will not, can not, develop into a human being.

The essential missing component of life is the womb. From a biochemical standpoint, the womb is a complex relationship between mother and fetus that can not be replicated in the lab. From a religious standpoint, the womb is the vessel of mankind. I find it very significant that Heavenly Father would so choose to introduce his Only Begotten into the world after being harbored in this consecrated manner.

As the cells for embryonic stem cell research have never been introduced into the womb, I must maintain that it is not parallel to abortion. If the manipulation or destruction of cell clusters from in-vitro fertilization is murder, then how should we feel about any other tissue that is of human origin? Should we preserve fat after liposuction? Should we protect the rights of an appendix? I am not devaluing life. I am just pointing out that a group of cells should be treated as such. The benefits and promise of stem cell research are magnificent, and I support the harvasting and culture of cells from all sources, save aborted children. Do not confuse embryonic stem cell research with abortion, the two could not be more different.

Simply put, stem cell research seeks to improve and preserve life.

Boy O Boy

I've busy and distracted and haven't had a chance to respond to Jake's rant on Operation, oh I mean, Proposition 8.

My initial reaction to the news of the LDS church's direct involvement in the political process reminded me of a quote I heard in the late 90's. This statement was released by the Shell Petroleum company after being (justifiably) accused of participation in Nigeria's civil conflict with the Ogani people:

"Some campaigning groups say we should intervene in the political process in Nigeria. But even if we could, we must never do so. Politics is the business of governments and politicians. The world where companies use their economic influence to prop up or bring down governments would be a frightening and bleak one indeed."

My main issue with the LDS church's support of Prop 8 is in the method, not in the motive. I adamantly proclaim the sanctity of marriage, and agree that on a religious level this union is only between a man and a women. I also agree that the LDS church retains the right to comment on ethical and moral issues - "churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society."

I beleive that marriage is a religious action, and should not be governed by the state in any way. I feel the church would be better served to break away from defintions approved or disapproved by government, and instead guide membership as to the symbolism and eternal commitment that is marriage.

My issue is with this statment read to congregations in California. In particular is the admonition that members donate"of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman."

This is where I feel the LDS church made a mis-step. I agree with their statement of belief, an encouragment to prayerfully consider the issue, and an appeal for tolerance and love, but I disagree with the call for donations. Using economic influence (directly or vicariously through it's members) to force "moral" changes in society, is a frightening prospect.

The problem is that if we give one church, or organization, the right to request monetary and literal action from it's members, then we are doomed to give all large groups, be it companies or churches, the protection to swing the club of economic influence. Pray that you always stand on the side far away from the blow, lest the giant is the self contradicting "Shell" and you are the "Oganis".