OK, So I don't know if I can really count it as 3 years blogoversary if I haven't been posting for most of the last year, but nevertheless... Happy 3 years to me.
Actually, I'm in the process of revamping things and hopefully will have something posted soon while I have time over the Holidays to do so.
Not that there's anyone reading anymore, but if there is... keep an eye out for changes soon
(Note: This post is an article I have written in response to an invitation to participate in an LDS blog symposium on the Book of Mormon, hosted on the Straight and Narrow blog. While intended for an LDS audience, non-LDS readers of this post will gain insight on a key influence on my political views.)
I have always been intrigued by the prevalence of warfare and political content in the Book of Mormon, despite it's claim to being a spiritual rather than a historical record. When one considers the perspective of the record's primary compiler, Mormon, as a military commander, this content is not altogether surprising. However, we are told repeatedly throughout the text that the intended audience of the record is the people of our day. Further, we know that engraving space on the metal record was limited and that the contributors to the records compiled by Mormon were commanded to only write that which pertained to spiritual matters.
We can therefore conclude that the warfare and political content of the Book of Mormon have specific spiritual importance to our time.
Political Structure as a Spiritual Issue
When I first conceived the topic of my contribution to the Straight and Narrow blog symposium, the premise I had in mind was to show how political freedom had an important role on the the spirituality of citizens. However, after re-examining the lessons taught by the text, it became clear that I had it exactly opposite: The spirituality of individuals and a nation as a whole has an important role in their political freedom, and their political structure tends to be directly or indirectly determined by their spiritual integrity. In preparation for this article, I skimmed the Book of Mormon for political content and skimming to sort spiritual and political content made the correlation more obvious to me than previous times I have read the book. (See Appendix A & B below for a summary of Book of Mormon political structures and an incomplete summary of Book of Mormon political, legal and military references.)
Readers of the Book of Mormon will be well acquainted with the oft-repeated promise of prosperity and liberty to those who keep the commandments of God, and the promise of destruction to those who do not. (This promise applies specifically to the Americas, which I explore further below.) We see this concept early in 1st Nephi and throughout the text, Mormon frequently interjected his own commentary ("And thus we see that...") within the record he was abridging to reinforce this message.
Time after time, we see individuals who first rebel against the church and gospel of Christ, then second rebel against the socio-political order, either by seeking to overthrow the government to their own advantage, or by joining the Lamanite nation and inciting them to war against the Nephite nation. Always, it was the spiritual rebellion (whether on the part of a group of dissenters or a leader already in a position of power) that preceded the political rebellion and oppression.
Characteristics of Righteous Leadership
There are many examples of good political leadership offered by the Book of Mormon, listed below:
- Servants of the people
The first King Mosiah, followed by King Benjamin and his son, the second King Mosiah gives us a good example of "servant leadership."All 3 of these kings relied on their own efforts to provide for their living, not by taxation. They served as moral examples. They consulted "men of God" in political and military matters. They served on the front lines of battle when war was necessary.
- Religious liberty
Under the Reign of the Judges in the books of Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, we see a repeated insistence of the law that there should be no religious persecution, and that men cannot be judged by the law based on his beliefs, except where his beliefs threaten the liberty of the people. We also see among the Lamanites following the conversion to Christianity of Lamoni's father, that he establishes a decree of religious liberty (and prohibition of religious persecution) to all Lamanites.
- Taxation
In contrast to the excellent example of King Benjamin, we have the example of King Noah, who taxes his people one fifth (20%) of all they produce to support himself, his wives, concubines and priests; and builds up elegant buildings and throne for himself and priests. This is noted in context of the description of Noah as a wicked king. We also have the example of the people of Limhi, who return to the original land of Lehi-Nephi and request whether the Lamanites will give them land to occupy. As a trap, the king of the Lamanites vacate some land for Limhi's people. The Lamanites impose a tax of half of all they produce, or take their lives: “a tax which is grievous to be borne . . . And is not this, our affliction great? Now behold, how great reason we have to mourn.”
(For perspective, a comparison to the current American tax system: “Tax Freedom Day,” the day of the year in which American’s earnings are their own after taxes, is April 26 for 2006, or 31.6% average tax burden, based on Federal and State income tax only. This does not include sales-based taxes, gasoline taxes, so-called "vice taxes" on cigarettes, alcohol, etc. , or government administered lotteries-- which I consider to be voluntary taxation for the stupid.)
- Slavery
Mentioned specifically as being against the law under the Reign of the Judges, and under the 200 years of peace and equality following the visitation of Christ to the Americas.
- Power and War
There are many shining examples of appropriate use of power and war (Captain Moroni, wielder of the Title of Liberty comes to mind) but I find it best expressed by Pahoran, the Chief Judge of Captain Moroni's time:
"I, Pahoran, do not seek for power, save only to retain my judgment-seat that I may preserve the rights and the liberty of my people. My soul standeth fast in that liberty in which God hath made us free.
And now, behold, we will resist wickedness even unto bloodshed. We would not shed the blood of the Lamanites if they would stay in their own land.
We would not shed the blood of our brethren if they would not rise in rebellion and take the sword against us . . . therefore . . . let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yea, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God.” (Alma 61: 9-14)
- Representative Government
Described as ideal in a world where “just men” (righteous kings after Christ’s model of servant leadership) cannot be guaranteed. This was hinted upon when the original Nephi was reluctant to become king ("...I was desirous that they should have no king,” 2 Nephi 5:18) and was reiterated by the second Mosiah, having learned from the example of King Noah:
“Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you. (Mosiah 29:13)
“Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.”(Mosiah 29:16)
“And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.” (Mosiah 29:21)
“For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;” (Mosiah 29:22)
“And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.”
On to the selection of leaders and laws by the people:
“Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore, this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction…” (Mosiah 29:26-27)
Book of Mormon perspective on American liberty
We know from repeated instances in the Book of Mormon that the Americas are declared by God to be a "land of promise."
We know from Nephi’s vision (1 Nephi 13) some 2000 plus years before the Declaration of Independence, that America in our time was specifically discovered and established by God-- we learn that the spirit of God wrought upon Columbus and other gentiles; “and they went forth out of captivity.” (1 Nephi 13:13)
“16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity [American colonists] did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.
17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles [England] were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them [the War of Independence].
18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.
19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations .”
We see these concepts came to be echoed later in America's founding documents-- such as the proclamation that God, not government, is the source of our "inalienable rights."
Lehi prophesies the New World to be a land of liberty (2 Nephi 1:6-11) – Keeping in mind Nephi's encouragement to "liken the scriptures unto us," does this not apply equally to the current inhabitants (us) as it did to the descendants of Lehi?
6 Wherefore, I, Lehi, prophesy according to the workings of the Spirit which is in me, that there shall none come into this land save they shall be brought by the hand of the Lord.
7 Wherefore, this land is consecrated unto him whom he shall bring. And if it so be that they shall serve him according to the commandments which he hath given, it shall be a land of liberty unto them; wherefore, they shall never be brought down into captivity; if so, it shall be because of iniquity; for if iniquity shall abound cursed shall be the land for their sakes, but unto the righteous it shall be blessed forever.
8 And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
9 Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever.
10 But behold, when the time cometh that they shall dwindle in unbelief, after they have received so great blessings from the hand of the Lord—having a knowledge of the creation of the earth, and all men, knowing the great and marvelous works of the Lord from the creation of the world; having power given them to do all things by faith; having all the commandments from the beginning, and having been brought by his infinite goodness into this precious land of promise—behold, I say, if the day shall come that they will reject the Holy One of Israel, the true Messiah, their Redeemer and their God, behold, the judgments of him that is just shall rest upon them.
11 Yea, he will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten." (emphasis mine)
Secular humanism and political freedom
In chapter 30 of the book of Alma, we are introduced to an Anti-Christ named Korihor. The interesting thing to me about the encounter with Korihor is the parallels between his rhetoric and the arguments made by secular humanists. At this time, the coming of Christ had been prophesied but had not taken place.
-In Alma 30: 13 & 15, Korihor argues for Impiricism, stating that prophets could not know of anything which is to come, and that one cannot know of things they cannot see.
-In verse 14, he dismisses belief in the coming Messiah as "foolish traditions of your fathers."
-In verse 16, he characterizes religion as a crutch for the mentally weak ("it is the effect of a frenzied mind")
-In verse 17, Korihor argues for a "might makes right" system (essentially social Darwinism) which leads neatly into situational ethics: "whatsoever a man did was no crime"
-In verse 18, he promotes hedonism, rationalizing that immoral acts had no consequence, as he claimed there is nothing after death.
-Further, in verse 23, he claims that religion is a mechanism to keep the people in ignorance and usurp power and authority over them. He follows this in verse 24 with the claim that religion is a form of bondage, that keeps people from free thought.
The people rejected his rhetoric and turned him over to the law. When presented to Alma, the Chief Judge of the time, he attempted to argue that this integration of church and state was a form of oppression on the people. Alma rebutted to Korihor with the reminder that both the judges and the priests earned their own livings, independently of their church or civil service.
Korihor's rhetoric would be echoed later by others who conspired to overthrow the government.
Again, the interesting thing to me about this encounter is how closely the rhetoric of Korihor the Anti-Christ matches the rhetoric of today's rabidly vocal minority, the secular humanist left.
Secret combinations then and now
Political, religious and economic conspiracies are referred to in the Book of Mormon as "secret combinations," and this is the 4th most frequent topic in the text, behind only the topics of Christ, missionary work, and warfare. This should be an indicator of the importance of being aware of them and keeping them out of our society.
We learn in Mormon chapter 8 that the Book of Mormon would come in a time “when there shall be great [spiritual] pollutions upon the face of the earth; there shall be murders, and robbing, and lying, and deceivings, and whoredoms, and all manner of abominations; when there shall be many who will say, Do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day. . . Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.” Mormon 8:31,32
Moroni has our time shown unto him and “knows [our] doing;” he condemns those who “build up . . . secret abominations to get gain” warns that “the sword of vengeance hangs over you.” (Mormon 8:35, 40, 41)
Moroni, speaking directly to our time, warns us again in Ether 8:
"...[W]hatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.
Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.
The remedy for political malady
Thus far we have established that, according to the lessons of the Books of Mormon, that political freedom is tied to the spiritual integrity of the peoples of a nation and their leaders. We have seen some qualities of good political leadership. We have explored the divine preparation for the establishment of American independence and the spiritual conditions required for the preservation of liberty. We have seen the introduction of secular humanist thought which produces dissent from righteous leadership and threatens liberty. We have seen the dangerous influence of political, economic and religious conspiracy and the direct warnings to watch out for and avoid them in our time, at the risk of our own destruction.
Seeing the parallels to all of these issues in our own time, one then might ask what can be done to offset these dangerous influences?
The Chief Judge Alma faced this same dilemma in Alma 31, when faced with the imminent dissent of the people calling themselves Zoramites, whom Alma feared would join with the Lamanite nation and incite them to war against the Nephite nation again.
His resolution? Missionary work: "And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God."
Is it really that simple? Unjust political conflict resolved by a little preaching? Obviously, it can't always work. There are cases where evil men simply refuse to conform to the principles of peace and liberty because those principles prevent them from obtaining the power they seek. We see repeated instances later in the book of Alma where Captain Moroni would force captured enemy combatants to choose between taking an oath to preserve peace and liberty, or death. (This solution is obviously only workable under righteous leadership.
While we may not be able to offset all evil by "the preaching of the word," it should be apparent that any hope of maintaining our political liberties is fruitless unless we can maintain a standard of spiritual integrity throughout the people in general. Our Founding Fathers recognized the Source of human liberty-- it should follow that a nation will cease to honor that liberty if it ceases to recognize that Source.
Continue reading "The Spiritual Aspect of Political Freedom" »
As I've tried to compose my thoughts for a tribute on this 5 year observance of the September 11 attacks, I've stared at a blank page for somewhere more than a half hour, running through a wide spectrum of emotions.
First things first: My deepest, warmest respects go to the victims, the first responders, the rescue workers, the families directly affected by the tragedy. There are wounds, I am sure, which still have yet to heal.
Secondly, my prayers go out for the welfare of the soldiers performing their duties in the conflicts that have come in the aftermath, and particularly to the families of those, soldier and innocent, who have been lost.
I wish I could leave it at that. I do not wish to desecrate the sanctity of the first two items with a political screed. Unfortunately, as a patriot loyal to the American Constitution, I must also take this occasion to mourn a third loss.
That is the loss of liberty, instigated by both the left and the right of the American political system, in the name of the September 11 tragedies and subsequent War on Terror.
As late as two years ago, I'd have considered that third statement to be unpatriotic, perhaps even slightly seditious. How did I get here?
Until five years ago today, my political eyes had been closed for most of my life. That Tuesday morning, I had arrived at work without having turned on the radio or television. My coworker mentioned something about an explosion at the World Trade center and I didn't know anything about it. "Where have you been?" she asked.
I logged into my work PC to get the news reports on-line. No work got done that day.
By the time the lunch hour approached, an email was sent out telling employees to go be with their families.
When I found myself alone in my car on the drive home, I was flushed with emotions. There was shock, anger, outrage. There was shouting, banging on the steering wheel, there were tears. There was fear; an unspeakable hollow dread. I remember knowing, feeling to my bones, that life had irrevocably changed.
This experience was to be repeated again nearly every morning and evening that week, driving to and from work-- with the addition of the stark awareness of the eerie emptiness of the skies. The movie "Red Dawn" was on my mind heavily those days, with the uncertainty of whether more attacks would come. My duties at work were bothersome interruptions to be quickly disposed of so that I could return to the on-line news coverage.
I reveled in the open display that followed of prayer and patriotism (which have always been natural companions to me.) The ubiquitous flying of flags, the spontaneous bipartisan eruption of Senators in singing of "God Bless America" on the Capital steps.
It was the attacks of September 11th which polarized me into ardent patriotism, it was that patriotism which drove me to seek out the writing of bloggers in the face of media bias against the Bush Administration's prosecution of the War on Terror, the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the deposition of Saddam, and the media's blatant opposition to Bush in the 2004 elections.
I started blogging shortly thereafter, always keeping the catalyst of 9/11 in mind as I crusaded against whatever I felt were injustices against American "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Right and wrong in politics had never been so starkly clear to me. If there was to be any sweetness amongst that bitterness of the 9/11 attacks, that sense of clarity and purpose was it.
I miss that sense of clarity.
Readers of my blog (any who remain) may have observed a sparcity of my writing lately. My writer's block has been primarily caused by a shift in political perspective, and an internal struggle to find my voice afterwards. The events of September 11th, 2001 play a key role in this shift as well, but for an altogether different reason.
It is with soberness and sadness that I must admit to having become a 9/11 skeptic. That the attack happened is an undeniable tragic reality, but whether we have been presented an accurate version of the events as they actually unfolded is in doubt to me. This brings into question the justice of the War on Terror and the safety of Liberty in the face of the Patriot Act. Two things which I would have never expected to question.
I realize this puts me in a minority view amongst those Republican/Conservative bloggers whom I have considered my friends and peers. I understand I may be dismissed as yet another "9/11 conspiracy loon". . . except that at this point I have no "conspiracy" to offer, per se. I just have a lot of doubts and questions.
Assuming those who have linked to me are still reading, I ask for your forebearance and open minds while I elaborate on my doubts and pursuit of truth in future posts.
May God bless America.
"I believe that there is no attack on American culture more destructive and more historically dishonest than the secular left's relentless effort to drive God out of America's public square. The United States is the only society that I know of whose founding political document recognizes that each person is endowed by God with the most fundamental human rights. The government does not grant rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In America's understanding, these rights come from our Creator and cannot be qualified by any government. It is this fundamental American belief that makes dictatorship morally reprehensible to the American mind.
If God is not the ultimate source of our liberty, than we are left with those justifications that often lead to totalitarianism. "
--Newt Gingrich
One man, following a drunken binge, is pulled over for drunk driving and proceeds to spew (among other things) a tirade of admittedly stupid, insensitive, completely inappropriate & unacceptable commentary against Jews to the police, for which he subsequently offers a series of public apologies, requests suggestions from the Jewish community for making amends and submits himself to an alcoholism recovery program.
The reaction of Leftist bloggers, media and commentators?
"Jew-hater" ... "anti-Semite" ... apology "too late" ... "not sincere" ... rehab choice "not enough" ... "career ruined"
Another man, presumably sober, repeatedly calls for Israel to "be wiped off the map", claims that the Jewish Holocaust was fabricated by Western powers as a pretext of establishing a "real holocaust in Palestine", is aggressively seeking nuclear technology, and is providing missiles to Hezbollah which are currently being used to kill Jews in Israel daily.
The reaction of Leftist bloggers, media and commentators?
The US needs to "sit down to the table" with Iran, negotiate, use more diplomacy, more incentives with Iran, supply nuclear technology, stop being so aggressive, and oh yeah... stop Israel from defending itself against the Iran-supplied missile attacks of Hezbollah.
Which in effect is more anti-Semitic? As bad as Gibson's comments were, has he been responsible for the death of any Jew? Ahmadinejad's regime has.
Why is the left crucifying Gibson and coddling Ahmadinejad? Is their concern really with anti-Semitic bigotry, wouldn't they be more distressed by statements and actions that actually result in the death of Jews vs. the ramblings of a drunk celebrity? If anti-Semitism was the true concern of the left, then their reaction to Ahmadinejad should be as proportionally severe as the net effect of his statements and actions vs. the statements and actions of Gibson. That is emphatically not the case. Why?
Based on the reaction of the Left, I am left with only a few possibilities:
A) Leftists both are cowards (in the case of Ahmadinejad) AND hypocrites (in the case of Gibson).
B) Leftists are secretly complicit or apathetic in regards to Ahmadinejad and are attacking Gibson out of other motives.
If B), what possible motive?
Gibson is a Catholic (strike one) who has made a film accurately portraying the role of Jewish leadership in the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth (strike two), which film succeeded in the box office (strike three).
Hence my titular reference to two bigotries: based on the Left's disproportionate response to Gibson and Ahmadinejad, I can only surmise that the key bigotry in play here is NOT anti-Semitism.
There was a lot of talk from the Left as to whether Israel's response to Iran-supported Hezbollah was "proportionate." It seems that their burning need for proportionate responses was quickly forgotten when Mel Gibson opened his mouth.
A nation that puts equality - in the sense of equality of outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.
-- Milton Friedman
On July 8, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law which forbids the practice of plural marriage in US territories. This act was aimed at abolishing the practice by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (referred to by many as "Mormons"), which had settled in the Utah Territory. If the church would not interfere with him, President Lincoln told the church, he had no intentions of inforcing the act. After all, the Mormons were essentially isolated in the territory, which was largely barren and hostile when they arrived there-- aside from the Native Americans living there, no one really wanted it. Frontiersman Jim Bridger had told Brigham Young that his pioneers would never be able to tame the land. All the other pioneers of the day were headed to Oregon, or to California for the goldrush.
But by the time the Civil War had ended and the California gold rush was over, Utah had become an oasis in the desert. Subsequent settlers of Utah who were not members of the church began to contest for political power in the territory which the Mormons had settled. The Liberal Party of Utah was formed in opposition of the Mormon-dominated political platform, focusing primarily against the Church's polygamist practices. Their effect would be felt nationally in February of 1882, when George Q. Cannon, elected Representative of the U.S. Congress for the Utah Territory (and prominant Mormon leader) was denied his congressional seat due to his polygamous relations.
The Edmunds Act was passed the following month, amending the Morrill Act by revoking several key rights of these polygamists:
-The right to vote, the right to hold office, even the right to due process of law. The mere confession of a belief in the church doctrine of plural marriage, even if one did not practice it, was grounds for the removal of these rights.
-It also allowed the U.S. Government to vacate all elected offices of government in the Territory, installing an election commission which filled offices using only candidates and voters to whom the Edmunds act did not apply: the anti-Mormon minority.
-The Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887 allowed the U.S. government to further extend the punishments of the 1882 Edmunds Act and seize the church-- the U.S. Attorney General followed up with a suit in July 1887 which seized the church and all of its assets. The military was deployed in the enforcement of the anti-polygamy laws.
The leadership of the church was forced underground, but facing the church's destruction, Wilford Woodruff and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (which made up the church leadership) eventually issued a manifesto in 1890, advising its members "to refrain from contracting any marriages forbidden by the law of the land." A second manifesto was issued in 1904 by the church, declaring that anyone participating or officiating in plural marriages would be excommunicated from the church. The relinquishing of this doctrine by the church led to the eventual restoration of rights to the membership of the church, and paved the way for the statehood of Utah in 1896.
I suspect that most people have little interest in the history of the church, or of the history of polygamy in the U.S., (except perhaps a few purile TV producers wanting to compete with "Desperate Housewives" in terms of libido, but with a twist-- portraying their polyamorous fantasies as "polygamy," however absurdly inaccurate their portrayal.)
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I am probably more aware than the average person, of the history of the church's former practices regarding marriage, and the conflict between the church and the U.S. Government at the time. But I am not interested in the practice per se, nor in blogging about it directly.
Rather, what I have described above is a legal and historical precedence in U.S. law and history regarding the treatment of citizens and institutions by the government, when those persons or institutions differ with the government's standing regarding the institution of marriage and how it is defined.
To recap: A group of American citizens, due to their religious beliefs, recognized, practiced and administered marriages which were defined in a manner that the U.S. Government did not recognize. Subsequently, members of the faith had basic rights of citizenship revoked, the church and it's assets were seized, their duly elected local government officials stripped of office, to be replaced by officers who opposed the views of the majority of the constituency, which was not permitted to participate in their selection.
I concede that one might argue that polygamy is an extreme example, as well as well as questioning the relevence of a case from two centuries ago. However, in a country where legal precendence dictates how law is enforced, this is a precendece which should not be ignored, regardless of one's views on polygamy specifically.
Want a more recent precedence?
Bob Jones University v. United States, a 1983 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, held that the Internal Revenue Source could, without approval from the United States Congress, could revoke the tax exempt status of organizations that are contrary to "public policy," a concept that either the Supreme Court nor the IRS has clearly or fully defined. The issue in which Bob Jones University was in contention with the government was again related to the definition of marriage: The school prohibited interracial marriage and dating among its students. Bob Jones' claim that the prohibition was grounded in religious belief and therefore protected by the First Amendment was dismissed-- the loss of the tax benefits did not prevent the school from "observing their religious tenents."
Still, the point was clear: the U.S. Government could and would exercise sanctions against an organization which did not conform to its policy regarding the definition of marriage. Of course, it wasn't framed as an issue of the definition of marriage-- it was framed as a civil rights issue.
Coming from a family in which is represented Black, Hispanic, Native American, European and Asian bloodlines, it should be clear that I do not share the disposition of Bob Jones University in regards to interracial marriage, and I am not here to argue whether the policy of the University (which was abandoned in 2000) was racist or discriminatory. One might argue that since a majority of citizens found the University's policy to be bigotry, discrimination of this nature justifies the government sanctioning.
But I am interested in the precendence set-- Though less severe, this precendence is essentially in accord with the previously cited example: A religious institution, whose views on the definition of marriage ran counter to public policy, received sanctions from the U.S. Government, essentially punishing the institution for disagreeing with the definition of marriage recognized by the government.
The clever reader will have already seen where I am going with this... Today we face the issue of homosexual "marriage," which is already legally recognized in Massachusetts as fitting within the definition of marriage to that state's government. To those who oppose the redefinition of the institution of marriage by government to include same-sex couples, often the burden of proof that there is validity behind their concern is placed upon them in a question such as, "If a same-sex couple were to be legally recognized in marriage, what concern is it to you? How are you personally affected by it?"
Given the two examples of legal precendence I've cited, I'm prepared to answer that question:
The ultimate effect of legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" is the destruction of one of the founding principles of America: Religious liberty.
Think I'm overstating it? Think those points of precendence won't be applied in regards to the same-sex "marriage" issue?
Think again-- it's already started.
Maggie Gallager of The Weekly Standard has written an article (well worth reading in entirety) which examines "[t]he coming conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty." I'll try to summarize the relevent points.
She sites the case of the Catholic Charities of Boston, one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, who announced on March 10th of this year that they were getting out of the adoption business: "We have encountered a dilemma we cannot resolve. . . . The issue is adoption to same-sex couples."
Massachusetts law prohibited "orientation discrimination" over a decade ago. Then in November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered gay marriage. The majority ruled that only animus against gay people could explain why anyone would want to treat opposite-sex and same-sex couples differently. That same year, partly in response to growing pressure for gay marriage and adoption both here and in Europe, a Vatican statement made clear that placing children with same-sex couples violates Catholic teaching.
. . .
To operate in Massachusetts, an adoption agency must be licensed by the state. And to get a license, an agency must pledge to obey state laws barring discrimination--including the decade-old ban on orientation discrimination. With the legalization of gay marriage in the state, discrimination against same-sex couples would be outlawed, too . . . From there, it was only a short step to the headline "State Putting Church Out of Adoption Business," which ran over an opinion piece in the Boston Globe by John Garvey, dean of Boston College Law School. It's worth underscoring that Catholic Charities' problem with the state didn't hinge on its receipt of public money. Ron Madnick, president of the Massachusetts chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, agreed with Garvey's assessment: "Even if Catholic Charities ceased receiving tax support and gave up its role as a state contractor, it still could not refuse to place children with same-sex couples."
This March, then, unexpectedly, a mere two years after the introduction of gay marriage in America, a number of latent concerns about the impact of this innovation on religious freedom ceased to be theoretical. How could Adam and Steve's marriage possibly hurt anyone else? When religious-right leaders prophesy negative consequences from gay marriage, they are often seen as overwrought. The First Amendment, we are told, will protect religious groups from persecution for their views about marriage.
But I've already shown that historical legal precedence proves that to be wrong. It will not likely stop at merely shutting down adoption agencies.
The article goes on to examine the anticipated impact of the introduction of same-sex "marriages" in America. Anthony Picarello, president and general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a religious liberty law firm which defends the religious liberty of all faith groups, states, "The impact will be severe and pervasive . . . This is going to affect every aspect of church-state relations . . . the church is surrounded on all sides by the state; that church and state butt up against each other. The boundaries are usually peaceful, so it's easy sometimes to forget they are there. But because marriage affects just about every area of the law, gay marriage is going to create a point of conflict at every point around the perimeter."
The strategy of the homosexual agenda, as has already been seen, is to pattern itself after the civil rights movement and subsequent legal precedences (even usurping the title of "civil rights" for the movement.) The parallel between orientation and race is purposely drawn, for a specific end: getting the law to treat people who oppose gay marriage like bigots who opposed interracial marriage-- this would establishes a legal definition of descrimination of so-called "sexual orientation," which will be punished like racial descrimination. No, people aren't arrested for simply being racist, but the law intervenes in powerful ways to punish and discourage racial discrimination not only by government, but by private entities.
"[I]t is not only gay marriage, but also the set of ideas that leads to gay marriage--the insistence on one specific vision of gay rights--that has placed church and state on a collision course. Once sexual orientation is conceptualized as a protected status on a par with race, traditional religions that condemn homosexual conduct will face increasing legal pressures regardless of what courts and Congress do about marriage itself."
The article outlines the following future points of conflict:
- Education: Same-sex marriage will affect religious educational institutions in at least four ways: admissions, employment, housing, and regulation of clubs. An ongoing California case is cited where a private Christian high school is defending it's decision to expell two girls in an allegedly self-professed lesbian relationship. If the school loses the case, "the government will force religious schools to tolerate both conduct and proclamations by students they believe to be sinful."
- Other church-affiliated endeavors then become questioned: religious camps, retreats, and homeless shelters... "What of a church-affiliated community center, with a gym and a Little League, that offers family programs? Must a religious-affiliated family services provider offer marriage counseling to same-sex couples designed to facilitate or preserve their relationships? . . . Future conflict with the law in regard to licensing is certain with regard to psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, and the like."
- Freedom of speech: The article cites two examples where the expression of religiously-based opposition to same-sex-marriage views in the workplace resulted in disciplinary action and the threat of legal action using sexual harassment laws as the instrument. In both cases, the charges were eventually dropped, but the strategy is clear: "People who favor gay rights face no penalty for speaking their views, but can inflict a risk of litigation, investigation, and formal and informal career penalties on others whose views they dislike. Meanwhile, people who think gay marriage is wrong cannot know for sure where the line is now or where it will be redrawn in the near future. 'Soft' coercion produces no martyrs to disturb anyone's conscience, yet it is highly effective in chilling the speech of ordinary people."
- Financial sanctioning of religious groups: "Religious groups that take government funding will almost certainly be required to play by the nondiscrimination rules, but what about groups that, while receiving no government grants, are tax-exempt? Can a group--a church or religious charity, say--that opposes gay marriage keep its tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law? "
- Roe v. Wade, Family law and health care law as precedence: The article suggests there will be legal precedence following the model of Roe v. Wade and related subsequent litigation regarding the impact of the abortion law on health care providers; that there will be "a concerted effort to take same-sex marriage from a negative right to be free of state interference to a positive entitlement to assistance by others."
Although Roe and Griswold established only the right to noninterference by the state in a woman's abortion and contraceptive decisions, family planning advocates have worked strenuously to force individual institutions to provide controversial services, and to force individual health care providers to participate in them. . . This litigation after Roe . . provides a convincing prediction about the trajectory that litigation after Goodridge will take." (Goodridge being the Massachusetts supreme court decision that legalized gay marriage).
. . .
The post-Roe litigation also provides fair warning about the limits of First Amendment protection. The lever used to force hospitals and doctors to perform abortions and sterilizations was the receipt of any public money. "Given the status of most churches as state nonprofits and federally tax-exempt organizations, it is likely that public support arguments will be advanced to compel churches to participate in same-sex marriage. Thus, churches in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon other states) may have much to worry about . . . Churches that oppose same-sex marriage today may perceive a credible, palpable threat to their tax-exempt status, the benefits of which are substantial.
Remember the Bob Jones case? This is where the rubber meets the road on that precedence: ". . . to be recognized as tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must have purposes and activities that do not violate fundamental 'public policy.'"
Right now . . . there is no clear federal public policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But such a policy is imminent . . . most likely within the decade. Once that occurs . . . "Any organization that engaged in such discrimination as a matter of faith would be in a position similar to Bob Jones University."
It's not that hard to imagine: Pass an antidiscrimination law at the federal level, which polls suggest the majority of Americans already support; look for a 5-or 10-point swing in public opinion on gay marriage; then add a new IRS commissioner (not directly accountable to the voters) who wants to make his or her progressive mark, and religious groups would wake up to find themselves playing in a whole new ballgame.
. . .
Precisely because support for marriage is public policy, once marriage includes gay couples, groups who oppose gay marriage are likely to be judged in violation of public policy, triggering a host of negative consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. Because marriage is not a private act, but a protected public status, the legalization of gay marriage sends a strong signal that orientation is now on a par with race in the nondiscrimination game. And when we get gay marriage because courts have declared it a constitutional right, the signal is stronger still.
The precendences have been set. The government has demonstrated the willingness and ability to force religious organizations to comply in word and in practice with public policy, using financial, legal, social, even military pressure.
Of course, the threat to religious institutions may be unconcerning or even desirable to many liberal homosexual agenda proponents. Such institutions, after all, are one of the primary obstacles to their pursuit of unfettered, even government-sanctioned sexual liberties.
What should concern them, however, is the underlying principle: that the special interests of a minority group can effectively undermine, even undo foundational constitutional liberties previously provided to the entire nation.
Is that the America you want?
This is a post about invasion.
In any other context, a body of some 11 (12? 15? 20?) million aliens infiltrating another sovereign nation, appropriating their resources, marching in their streets en mass, openly subverting their laws, and seeking to usurp their political and economic process-- in any other context, this would be classified as an invasion, as an act of war.
Why have the Congress and the President abandoned their sworn duties to uphold the law and protect their people?
Our Congress and our Executive office, in trying to pocket the "latino vote"; and our nation's employers, who participate in illegal hiring practices for cheap labor, are all doing their part to subsidize the invasion of our sovereign nation.
If our leaders have not sold out to their own voter interest and/or corporate interests, why would they not take advantage of the opportunity presented by hundreds of thousands or more illegal alien invaders gathering themselves in large numbers, conveniently rounding themselves up and identifying their status as illegal aliens?
For all those who have complained that identifying and extracting illegal aliens would be difficult, today is the day.
If our political leaders were to be fulfilling their duty, the National Guard, the USCIS, and the police forces would be out en masse today, sweeping the falsely labeled "immigration" rallies to verify the papers of all assembled and detaining and deporting the undocumented, illegal, invading aliens.
Critics claim the process of rounding up and deporting the invasion force would cost the U.S. some $40 Billion a year over 5 years-- coincidentally, $40 billion a year is what Latin American and Caribbean migrant workers sent back home last year via Western Union. Whether from illegal workers getting "cash under the table" (in which no tax is collected) or those faking/stealing Social Security numbers, that is money simply vanishing from the American economy.
Liberal economists swear that legal immigrants to the USA bring in $25 billion in net revenue annually. More skeptical statisticians conclude that aliens cost the United States over $40 billion a year. Other studies suggest that the average California household must contribute at least $1,200 each year to subsidize the deficit between what immigrants cost in services and pay in taxes.
Roosevelt got it:
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American… There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” —Theodore Roosevelt, 1907
Having a wife who is going through the LEGAL immigration process at our personal expense and inconvenience, I am not at all opposed to immigration.
But this is not immigration. This is a political and economic assault by a large body of foreign invaders. Whether you get it or not, today's rallies represent an escalation of that invasion.
Shamefully, our own politicians and corporations are complicit in it, overlooking the long-term peril such invasion represents to us and themselves, for their own short-term gains.
Incidentally, is it any coincidence this is taking place on a well-established Communist holiday? The same communist movement which was the avowed enemy of American sovereignity and her Free Enterprise system? (Not surprising, since the organizers of these rallies are largely socialist organizations.)
Think this is about immigration policy?
Think again.
Update: Jason at TexasRainmaker noticed the significance of the rally date too. He links to a marxists.org article citing the history of May Day. I found this comforting quote in the last paragraph:
"May Day--the day which inspires fear in the hearts of the capitalists and hope in the workers--the workers the world over--will find the Communist movement this year stronger in the U. S. than at any time in its history.... The road is clear for greater achievements, and in the United States as elsewhere in the world the future belongs to Communism." (emphasis mine)
Still think this movement is about immigration?
Update: California Conservative notes that the invading forces are also identity thieves:
Here is something to say to yourself as you are watching the May 1st illegal immigration protests, “I could be one of them.”
Quite literally, you could be. You are probably well aware of the raid by Federal authorities last month that found over 1000 employees of IFCO Systems were illegal immigrants. However, what you are not aware of is the fact that in the audit leading up to the raid, according to CNN, over 53% of IFCO’s entire work force was using fake or stolen social security numbers. Whose numbers? Who knows! The federal government, IRS, and Social Security Administration are not saying. Nor, are they planning on it because to do so would highlight to the public the greatest threat posed to the average American by illegal immigration, identity theft.
is that, if the government is going to start kowtowing pandering giving free passes providing amnesty a guest-worker program that lets illegals stay here and continue to enjoy the benefits of this country regardless of their extra-legal status, then I DEMAND A REFUND! from the government of all the visa processing and immigration attorney fees that I paid (and am STILL paying) to get my wife over here on a fiance visa.
FURTHERMORE, I demand they pay monetary compensation for lost 1.5 years away from each other while we prepared, filed, and waited for processing of the fiance visa.
If the government is hard-pressed to allocate funds for such reimbursement on a major scale to all those citizens and pending citizens (whom they have been ripping off for no apparent purpose if they are willing to pass amnesty guest-worker programs which effectively invalidate the current immigration process) then to pay for it, I suggest they impose a hefty fine to register those psuedo-citizens who are apparently so valuable to our nation's economy.
Since they ARE apparently so valuable to the economy, I'm sure they must be good for the money, right?
Heh.
Just to bring a smile to my atheist readers:
An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!" He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he
heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw
a 7-foot grizzly charge towards him. He ran as fast as he could up
the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in
on him.
He looked over his shoulder again & the bear
was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over
to pick himself up but saw
that the b! ear was right on top of him,
reaching for him with his left
paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out
of the sky.
"You deny my existence for all these years,
teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic
accident."
"Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I
to count you a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light,
"It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask You to treat me as a
Christian now, but perhaps
You could make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very Well," said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear
dropped his right paw, brought both paws
together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to
receive from thy bounty
through Christ our Lord, Amen."
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
Recent Comments